Identity Cards

Baroness Sharples: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made towards introducing a national identity card scheme.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government published a consultation paper on entitlement cards and identity fraud on 3rd July of this year. The consultation period will end on 31st January 2003. We have received over 1,500 letters and e-mails with the majority of respondents who expressed an opinion being in favour of some form of national identity or entitlement card. The introduction of a national entitlement card scheme covering everyone in the country would be a major undertaking. The Government will consider the views expressed very carefully before reaching a decision.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply which, for the first time in eight years, I am actually very happy to receive. Does he agree that there is increasing fraud in this country in every aspect of life? Especially disturbing is the fact that illegal immigrants have been using the identities of 1,000 deceased babies to gain entry to this country.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with those remarks both in relation to identity fraud and the issue of illegal working in this country. As the published consultation document indicated, an entitlement card would be a useful means both of dealing with identity fraud and helping to reduce the amount of illegal working. The paper made it clear that a scheme would not be a complete answer to either of those issues but in certain respects, depending on the scheme, it could help.

Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend explain to the House how long it might take for an identity card scheme to be introduced if next month the report suggests that that will be so?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would take a period of time—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: —which noble Lords might think is obvious. The consultation document refers to an initial period of three years and a subsequent period of about seven years in which one would have to introduce the appropriate technology, issue everyone with the card and introduce schemes to enable government departments to deal with the matter.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, later today we shall discuss the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. As part of that exercise of extending co-operation between member states, has the United Kingdom discussed the matter with other countries of the EU?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there could be a role for an entitlement card in that respect although the detail would obviously have to depend upon negotiations with other countries.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Minister said that to introduce the measure we are discussing would constitute a major undertaking. However, during wartime it did not seem to take all that long to get identity cards under way. I do not quite understand—perhaps the Minister can explain this—why it constitutes such a major undertaking now.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the measure constitutes a major undertaking because for it to be useful it would have to be universal, it would have to be capable of being used by government departments and it would have to be capable of being used by other organisations that might find it useful. It would take time to introduce a scheme that meets those objectives. The scheme would also need to take advantage of any new technology that might become available, for example, in relation to identity. To suggest that such a scheme could be introduced in a short period of time is to overstate what is achievable.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that every government department appears to have a different identity card at the moment?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept that a range of cards are used by individual departments but one of the purposes of the scheme that is outlined in the consultation document is to determine how one introduces a card that would be accepted universally and therefore have real value in providing better services for the system.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are at present many partial identity cards? To obtain a very simple permit you have to send in all sorts of original documents which are often lost. The process is cumbersome and difficult. If there could be harmonisation of those cards it would make life much easier as regards travel and a whole range of other aspects of our lives.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is very much the case. That is one of the benefits of the universal entitlement card to which the consultation document relates. However, it is important that there be widespread acceptance of it as an entitlement card for it to have the kinds of benefit to which the noble Baroness refers. That may be why it cannot be introduced, as it were, straight away.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recognise that there are strong civil libertarian arguments in favour of the introduction of a national identity card? What does my noble and learned friend think of those arguments?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there are real benefits in civil liberties terms in regard to the introduction of an entitlement card. My noble friend will know, however, that some civil libertarians take a different view. It is worth pointing out that the consultation document makes clear that we are not considering a scheme that will require compulsory carrying of the card. All that we are talking about is a universal entitlement card for which people should perhaps register. We believe that the ability to prove one's identity easily without being compelled to carry a card has real benefits in terms of establishing one's position, sometimes against the state. That is a real benefit.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that if he takes account of the average age of noble Lords and the date on which the identity card was abolished, he may still be confident for about a decade ahead of a majority in this House? Would it not be wise to take advantage of that?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not clear in what respect I would be taking advantage of that. I have never dared try to calculate the average age of noble Lords. I imagine that that is beyond mathematical calculation. The matter goes back to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in that one has to be realistic about the time-scale of the introduction of such a scheme as we are discussing. We all know from previous experience that one should do it in sensible stages so that it works when it is introduced.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend the Minister recall that the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, asked a question back in March about the number of national databases held on the average citizen in the UK? On the eve of the Recess the Government said that they could not answer that question. Will my noble and learned friend indicate whether when the consultative period is concluded the Government will at last be in a position to answer that question and, if not, why not?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not recall the question asked in March by my noble friend Lord Woolmer. This is an important issue. I cannot give any undertakings about whether we will be able to answer the question by the end of the period but we shall certainly try.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, when can we expect the decision to which the Minister referred in his Answer? Will he also say to what extent and how the Government's thinking is being affected by the huge influx of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the consultation period ends on 31st January 2003. We will obviously need a period in which to consider the responses to the consultation and work out the right response. I am afraid that I cannot give any indication of how long after 31st January that will take. On the noble Lord's second question, as I have made clear in relation to a number of questions, the consultation document clearly sets out what the benefits would be of a universal entitlement card, in particular when dealing with illegal working. That connects with the noble Lord's question.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I sat on a European committee with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia? We dithered over the decision. Only the Government can decide. Half of the committee was for an identity card and half of the committee was against it. It is no use the Government fiddling around. Will the Minister assure us that he is prepared to make a decision?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I did not realise that the noble Lord had sat on that committee and I did not realise that it had left him so upset about the way in which it had performed or that it had failed to reach a decision. We believe that the right course in relation to entitlement cards is to have a proper debate; that is what we have encouraged. The consultation comes to an end on 31st January 2003. The right thing is for the Government to make a decision in the light of that debate.

London Underground Contracts: Consultancy Costs

Lord Newby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the cost to date to public funds of the bidding process for the public/private partnerships for the maintenance and renewal of the London Underground system.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand from London Transport that it has spent £96.3 million on external consultants for developing the PPP modernisation plans since the Government's announcement on 20th March 1998. This represents less than 1 per cent of the £16 billion investment that will be delivered over the first 15 years of the contracts.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that during the course of the second judicial review on the PPP, the barrister for London Underground, John Howell QC, said that negotiations on the contracts had involved very considerable amounts of money, some £400 million since the beginning of the programme and £100 million since the selection of the preferred bidders? Will the Minister confirm that the figures quoted by the QC are correct? Will he acknowledge that spending such ridiculously large amounts on contracts that are not yet signed leads many people in London and beyond to believe that this is a fatally flawed project?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know how the QC reached his figures. I tried very hard to come to a global amount but failed. I gave the Answer in relation to external consultants for London Transport. One could add London Transport staff costs but some of those are not related to the PPP. Much of that amount relates to reorganisation and restructuring. Those costs would have been incurred anyway. There is an argument about whether one should include them. One could also include as part of the contracts the costs incurred by the bidders, which will have to be repaid by the taxpayer in due course. Again, that is normal commercial practice. What should and should not be included is not entirely set. I cannot therefore confirm or deny what the QC is quoted as saying.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend told us previously that matters involving PPP or PFI are decided not on an off balance sheet basis but in terms of value for money. Would he care to publish figures showing the costs of PPP, including these enormous consultancy fees, in comparison with the proposals from the Mayor of London?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give the assurance that the costs of consultancy have been taken into account. When the calculation was made by Ernst & Young, external consultants, the PPP was found to be value for money to the tune of £2 billion.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that our experience of the Dome and other enormous projects, some having the potential for massive losses, suggests that expenditure on consultancy fees of less than 1 per cent of the total cost is a pretty good bargain?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, my Lords; the whole principle behind the PPP is a transfer of risk from the public to the private sector. That transfer of risk involves not only construction costs, as is always the case for work carried out for the public sector by the private sector, but also the maintenance of the infrastructure being created by the initial investment over a period of more than 15 years. The transfer of risk justifies the costs. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is entirely right.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister remember saying last week in the debate on the Pre-Budget Report—I believe I have it correctly—that all contingent liabilities above £100,000 are declared in the Red Book? I have been looking for the rail and Tube borrowings to which he referred, which are guaranteed by the Government, but I cannot find them. Can he tell me on what page they appear?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to say—I wish it were not so—that we have not reached a conclusion on the public/private partnership for London Underground. Therefore, there is no final figure.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on what the Minister said, can he indicate when he expects the much-needed investment under the PPP will begin to flow?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, I wish that I could. We have virtually reached financial close. We are expecting the state aid approval from the European Commission any day now. Then the outstanding issue will be whether the Mayor chooses to appeal against the European Commission decision on state aid. If so, there will be another substantial delay.

DTI Strategy Unit

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the role of the Department of Trade and Industry's strategy unit; what achievements the unit has to its credit; and what is the total number of its staff and its cost.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the role of the strategy unit is to measure and assess the country's enterprise and innovation performance, to compare our performance with other countries, to consult our stakeholders and to help develop new policies in areas such as competition policy, enterprise, science and technology, skills and corporate governance. The unit was set up in April by bringing together the department's strategic planning, economic and statistical analysis and communications sections, which consist of 18, 57 and 68 staff respectively. The associated annual staff cost is £5.733 million.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that that Answer does not get us much further. Is he aware that my curiosity drove me to the Civil Service Year Book? To my great surprise I discovered that this gem of a human organisation exists,
	"to drive up UK productivity and competitiveness",
	and—mark these words—to ensure,
	"that this strategy is clearly communicated".
	Will the Minister think me rude if I say that his Answer has not contributed to a clear communication on the strategy?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, on the contrary. I thought that in 75 words I did extremely well to cover at least five or six different questions. I hope I was clear. I explained exactly the areas where the unit measures performance, the activities that it undertakes in that respect and how it will help to deliver policy in those areas. I thought the Answer extremely clear and that it conveyed exactly what the unit does.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister. Does he recollect that Mr Peter Mandelson, missed by some in what was a short-lived appointment as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, originated a report detailing the objectives and the benchmarks against which the Department of Trade and Industry would be measured? Can the Minister say when an up-to-date report will be available detailing achievement against such objectives and benchmarks?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the strategy unit has already published the 2002 update of our productivity and competitiveness indicators. In the spring of next year we shall publish both where the resources are allocated within the DTI and the targets for the different parts of the department against which its performance can be measured.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, did the Minister see in The Times today the remarks of Sir Stephen Brown, the chief executive of British Trade International? They appeared under the heading:
	"Trade chief says red tape and costs hurt UK".
	In the light of the response he has given the House, will the Minister ask the strategy unit to investigate this critical issue which we on this side of the House have been trying to make the Government focus on for some time?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is exactly the kind of issue on which it is necessary to have a clear grasp of the facts and figures. The unit can have most impact in exactly that kind of area. On the basis of the extraordinary figures produced in this context by the CBI and the Conservative Party, I would have thought that the strategy unit would be very useful.

Lord Jones: My Lords, does my noble friend know whether the strategy unit ever considers the prospects for Britain's hard-pressed manufacturing industries? Does it ever consider the prospects for the hard-pressed steel industry, particularly in Wales? Is the unit considering any such problems?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we recently introduced a manufacturing strategy document that considers the impact that the policy areas under the control of the DTI have on manufacturing strategy. We have produced policy proposals for that.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister asked the strategy unit to work out how much innovation could have been purchased for £100 million if that money had been spent on innovation for the Underground instead of on consultants' fees?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that we are about to start a major review of innovation policy. No doubt—if he feels that it would be a useful exercise—at the end we shall be able to give him an exact figure of what could be purchased with £100 million and how that could be used in other areas.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in relation to the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, I am sure that no one in the House disbelieves the Minister when he says that the strategy unit can do what my noble friend asked. However, the question he was really asking was: will it do that?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, those are the kind of indicators that we want to measure. I am sure that keeping an eye on and analysing those figures will be the kind of task that the unit will undertake.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the statue of my late noble kinsman Lord Alanbrooke on the foregreen of the Ministry of Defence, whose plinth states that he was a master of strategy, belies that title as he looks up Whitehall towards Trafalgar Square and not down Whitehall towards the Treasury on which he should sensibly keep an eye?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is a very interesting observation. I shall pass it on to the strategy unit.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the strategy unit has been able to consider the proposals for the defence export scrutiny committee which some months ago were pressed for at length?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the answer is quite simply no, it has not. I do not believe that that is the kind of issue that it would be expected to consider. As I said, it is considering the particular productivity indicators and the impact they have on the economy.

Disaster Planning

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who is responsible for disaster planning at national level.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear in Parliament on 20th November, responsibility for the arrangements for co-ordinating the Government's response to major emergencies lies with the Home Secretary. A system is in place to support him, headed at official level by Sir David Omand, who is the Permanent Secretary in charge of security and intelligence co-ordination.
	In supporting my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, all departments have a responsibility to plan, to prepare, to train and to exercise for handling major incidents and emergencies that might occur within their area of responsibility. It is their Ministers' responsibility to ensure that they are ready to take the leading role on behalf of central government in managing the initial response to a major emergency in their field of responsibility, mitigating its immediate effects and organising the development of a recovery plan. Departments are brought together within three Cabinet committees that are chaired by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, previously when I asked this Question in the House I was told that the Minister did not know who was in charge of emergency planning at national level. Having had a more elucidating Answer today, is the Minister aware that there is incredible disquiet among emergency planning officers up and down the country and that the Government's lack of focus, co-ordination and direction is shameful in the light of what happened on 11th September and since?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, no. I think that that is a totally unfair way of looking at the issue. The NAO has looked at it and said that there has been great improvement since 11th September. Obviously, one can never get to a point where everything that has to be done is done. One has constantly to keep the issue under review. That is what we are doing. In a sense it is an unpolitical issue where we must work together to identify what are the best arrangements.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the remit of General Kiszely—in command of the land forces—in this context?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I understand the matter, General Kiszely is the member of the Armed Services who is in charge of the deployment of those troops engaged in fire service while the Fire Brigades Union is on strike.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that international collaboration is also vital to disaster planning, especially natural disaster planning? Will this organisation be responsible for collaborating with the EU and with the UN system through the international secretariat for natural disaster reduction in Geneva? Is this unit also responsible for collaborating with the UK communities involved in research and humanitarian affairs in this matter?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously it will depend on the precise disaster, but liaison with our EU partners and with the United Nations, both in terms of planning and as to what may happen in relation to an individual disaster, will frequently be vital. That obviously must also be worked out at the planning stage.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Greater London Council existed each local member had a very detailed emergency plan which they were asked to guard with their lives and which was highly confidential? Of course when the GLC was disbanded they went. What is the present position? Do regional government members in any part of the country have a similar responsibility now? Is there liaison between national, local and regional departments in co-ordinating any kind of emergency?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the position in relation to the GLC, referred to by the noble Baroness. As to planning for emergencies, obviously a vital aspect is the relationship between central government, local government and the Scottish, Welsh and London governances. It is incredibly important that there is proper liaison between those three levels of government. That is part of the contingency planning arrangements.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that almost every terrorist attack has produced an emergency powers Bill which has chipped away at civil liberties and given more powers to security services, the police and others? If there is to be co-ordination of government departments, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to have proper parliamentary accountability of what is going on in this area—perhaps paralleling the role of the security service committee, so a committee of senior Privy Councillors could keep an eye on the matter? It is very serious when these matters are taken away into the bureaucracy of Whitehall and when parliamentary probing always gets the, "Well, if only you knew what we knew", answer. There is a need for parliamentary control in these areas. I hope that the Government are sensitive to that.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in response to recent acts of terrorism, the Government have quite sensibly proposed legislation. The extent to which those particular powers require review was properly debated in this House and another place, and proper safeguards, as required by Parliament, were put in place. What we are discussing at the moment in relation to this Question is contingency planning. That obviously depends on the Government's powers, but it also depends on keeping an eye on those things that one needs to do in order, first, to prevent such a contingency occurring, and, if it does, being able to respond to it adequately. That is what the Question is about.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House which voluntary bodies it is assumed would play a major role in a disaster situation? A few decades ago the WRVS was a very strong organisation with vehicles, cooking implements and so on at its disposal. It played a key role at the time of the east-coast floods at the beginning of the 1950s. Is there any voluntary body in business today with anything like the capability that that voluntary body had a few decades ago? Are we not desperately short of volunteers and voluntary bodies that are well trained to deal with emergencies?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the response to a civil contingency will, depending on the civil contingency, involve a whole range of public, private and voluntary sector bodies. The planning aims to ensure that all those bodies can be mobilised at the appropriate moment.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Minister may be surprised to know that I am about to congratulate him, or to congratulate someone. While sitting in this seat today, I received a communication from the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod saying that the National Consumer Council has sent me a package with talcum power in it. I should like to commend those who have opened the package for their vigilance.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my hopes were raised briefly when the noble Baroness said that she was going to congratulate me. She soon diverted from that possibility to congratulate the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod on spotting that it was talcum power that was being sent. Perhaps I may also congratulate him.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, if there were to be a disaster in Scotland or Wales, who will be ultimately responsible—the United Kingdom Government or the devolved Executive? Will the co-ordination be any better than it was during the foot and mouth epidemic?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the arrangements for civil contingency planning involve—for example, in relation to particular identified possible civil contingencies—identifying where the lead should be, how it should be dealt with and close co-ordination between the devolved assemblies and central government. Responsibility for particular parts of it may have to be separated depending on the nature of the emergency. But that is what civil contingency planning involves addressing.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, do the Government contemplate among their contingency planning the issue at some stage of gas masks?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is a whole range of contingencies, which is what contingency planning seeks to deal with. Of course it will depend on the particular contingency.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, does the Minister recall his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in a previous discussion on this subject at Question Time, revealing the existence of the Emergency Planning Committee for London, on which sat a number of very senior officials, including the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary? When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in a Written Question how often that committee met, he said he could not say because it was a matter of national security. Can the noble Lord either tell the House how often it meets, or will he accept that—as the more cynical of us may believe—it never meets at all?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the Answer from my noble and learned friend Lord Rooker.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rooker. I am sorry. I apologise to him for associating him with all those lawyers. I know that he would regard that as a very unwise remark on my part. I do not know how many times it has met. I do not know whether or not it would be appropriate for me to say how many times it has met. But perhaps I may write to the noble Lord in that respect.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Filkin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Northern France.

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the driving and use of vehicles drawn by horses or other animals on roads or in other public places; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 10th December next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord McIntosh of Haringey to be taken before the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [HL].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Rights Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should point out that in paragraph (c) the reference should be to Standing Order 74, rather than Standing Order 73.
	Moved, That a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
	To consider:
	(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
	(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and
	(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order 74 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments);
	To report to the House:
	(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
	(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved;
	and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders; and
	To report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether:
	(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
	(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or
	(c) that the order should not be approved,
	and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:
	L. Bowness, L. Lester of Herne Hill, L. Parekh, B. Perry of Southwark, B. Prashar, B. Whitaker;
	That the committee have power to agree with any committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Procedure of the House Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:
	L. Alderdice, B. Blatch, V. Brookeborough, E. Caithness, L. Chalfont, L. Cope of Berkeley, L. Craig of Radley, L. Crickhowell, L. Denham, L. Donaldson of Lymington, L. Geddes, L. Gladwin of Clee, L. Goodhart, B. Goudie, L. Grenfell, L. Grocott, L. Haskel, L. Irvine of Lairg (Lord Chancellor), L. Judd, B. Rendell of Babergh, L. Roper, L. Strathclyde, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, L. Trefgarne, L. Waddington, B. Warnock, B. Williams of Crosby, L. Williams of Mostyn (L. Privy Seal).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [HL]

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Bill marks a significant advance in co-operation against serious crime and terrorism within the European Union. It will enable us to work more closely and effectively with both our European Union partners and others outside the EU.
	International crime affects us all. Greater freedom to travel and live in other countries and the growth of international trade mean that crime is no longer confined by national boundaries. But the impact of international crime is often felt on a local scale. It is the larger criminal gangs that facilitate local crimes in the UK—for example, by supplying stolen goods or drugs.
	Drug smuggling is one of the main cross-border crimes and the main activity of serious and organised criminals. It is estimated that two-thirds of organised crime groups are involved in drug trafficking, and international drug smugglers feed the local drug markets that in turn lead to theft locally. As many as two-thirds of persistent offenders have a serious drug problem and between a third and a fifth of all acquisitive crime is linked to the need to pay for illegal drugs. Theft and burglary bring insecurity and disruption to their victims, so there is a clear connection between tackling international organised crime and improving the safety of our streets and homes.
	Nor is the problem confined to drug trafficking. Other cross-border crimes have an impact on society more widely—such as people trafficking, counterfeiting, money laundering and cigarette smuggling. People trafficking is on the increase: 21,800 illegal entrants were detected in the first nine months of 2000 compared with 16,000 in 1999.
	The best way to tackle international crime is to work closely with our neighbours. That is especially true of drug trafficking. The Netherlands and Spain are both significant bases for the secondary distribution of drugs within the EU, including to the UK. We are already working with our EU partners. For example, the first joint investigative team that the UK is setting up is with Spain, targeting cocaine traffickers. During the past 12 months, the UK has worked with Europol on more than 500 UK cases that have required European co-operation. Those have ranged from simple requests for information to major joint operations.
	However, we need to do more. Too many obstacles to international investigations serve only to protect the criminal. Bringing multinational gangs to justice may involve several trials in different countries, each with their own criminal procedures. Ensuring success for such complex procedures means reducing the obstacles that block effective cross-border co-operation. That is what the Bill is intended to achieve.
	The Bill will make the changes needed to enable the UK to participate in the non-border aspects of the Schengen Convention. The Schengen arrangements provide a clear framework for effective co-operation, especially for cross-border police operations. The UK first applied to participate in the police and judicial co-operation elements of Schengen in May 1999. Our application was accepted a year later, and I welcome this chance to legislate to make good our participation.
	The question of UK participation in Schengen has been of considerable interest to your Lordships' House. Under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the European Union Committee undertook four separate reports into the Schengen acquis, its incorporation into the EU treaty structure and the UK's intentions towards Schengen. I am happy to note that a report published in March 1999—just before the Government made our formal application to participate in Schengen—concluded that:
	"if the United Kingdom does not opt-in, its influence over a broad range of Justice and Home Affairs matters may be seriously diminished . . . Weaker United Kingdom influence over the development of European policies will mean that such policies will reflect the preferences of others, and fail to take into account particular United Kingdom concerns".
	We do not accept that our influence over EU affairs has been in any way weakened during the past few years—indeed, quite the reverse—but active participation in Schengen will serve only to strengthen our influence over justice and home affairs matters, as well as bringing material benefit to those involved in fighting cross-border crime.
	Let me explain in more detail what the Bill will achieve. The first part of the Bill will modernise our arrangements for providing mutual legal assistance and bring them in line with the new proceedings brought in by Schengen and by the mutual legal assistance convention agreed in May 2000. The convention was part of the EU's anti-terrorism road map, agreed after 11th September.
	Mutual legal assistance (MLA) is the formal process by which countries request and provide assistance in obtaining evidence located in one country to assist in criminal proceedings in another. Effective and swift MLA arrangements are essential if we and our EU partners are to run successful cross-border investigations and prosecutions. MLA is not new: we have undertaken it for many years. The new provisions will speed up and reduce scope for delay in respect of international co-operation. We will extend some of the modernising provisions to countries outside the EU.
	The changes will allow UK prosecutors to send requests for evidence directly to courts in other EU countries, rather than going through the central authority system, allowing us to provide other countries with evidence by television link in MLA cases. That is an essential modernisation of existing arrangements to enable international co-operation to benefit from modern technology. We expect that that will be of most use in cases involving countries outside the EU, because greater distances make travel less attractive and TV evidence more attractive.
	The Bill will also introduce mutual recognition of orders to freeze evidence, as provided for by the EU's draft framework decision on the execution of orders freezing evidence. That is a major step forward that will significantly speed up the process of securing valuable evidence. Mutual recognition takes MLA one step further by recognising directly, as between EU member states, a request made by a court, so enabling a direct response with the minimum of formality. The UK is a keen supporter of the principle of mutual recognition, which both speeds up co-operation and respects the diversity of legal systems. We therefore welcomed the conclusion at the 1999 Tampere Council—a special meeting of the European Council devoted to justice and home affairs—that mutual recognition should be a cornerstone of future development of judicial co-operation in the EU.
	Criminals operating across international borders are often also involved in financial crime and money laundering. It is recognised that the ability to obtain comprehensive banking information from other EU countries would be of significant assistance to domestic law enforcement. The Bill will increase our ability to respond to requests from other EU countries for information relating to bank accounts of criminal suspects. By implementing the protocol to the mutual legal assistance convention, the EU has created a reciprocal obligation between member states to respond to requests for financial information. The requests will reflect the new investigative tools introduced by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
	Part 2 of the Bill deals with terrorism. Like criminals, terrorists do not respect national boundaries. We need effective measures with persuasive penalties that are imposed consistently across the EU. Following the events of 11th September last year, the EU agreed a framework decision that requires all member states to introduce extensive anti-terrorism legislation. As the UK already has wide-ranging domestic anti-terrorist legislation, which was largely the inspiration for the Commission's proposal, we are already broadly compliant with the body of the framework decision. So implementing that measure does not require us to create any new offences or penalties. It simply requires us to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a wider range of terrorist offences than at present.
	The Bill will therefore take extra-territorial jurisdiction over terrorist offences committed overseas against UK nationals, diplomatic staff and diplomatic premises. It will also take ETJ over terrorist offences committed overseas by UK nationals. We supported that measure during its negotiation in Brussels and we welcome this opportunity to implement promptly the changes needed to bring it into force.
	Part 3 deals with driving disqualifications. It is not right that people who commit a driving offence for which they are disqualified while abroad should be able to escape being disqualified when they return home to their usual state of residence. The EU Driving Disqualification Convention is intended to promote the principle that drivers should abide by the rules of the road, no matter where they are driving. That will help to promote greater road safety across the EU. There are safeguards to ensure that the arrangements are not misused and do not lead to any unfair decisions. The process for notifying a disqualification will apply only once any appeal has been completed and there will be a right of appeal in the UK against recognition of foreign disqualifications that can be suspensive.
	Part 3 also allows for recognition in Great Britain of driving disqualifications imposed in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar. The fact that none of those jurisdictions recognises driving disqualifications imposed in any of the others is an anomaly whose remedy is long overdue. A more uniform system across the UK is also essential for implementation of the wider EU measures.
	The last part of the Bill wraps up a number of changes that we need to make before we can participate in the Schengen Convention. It provides a safeguard by giving the Information Commissioner new powers to inspect independently the UK national sections of the Schengen information system, the Europol information system and the Customs information system. Creating a statutory basis for the role of the Information Commissioner in that way is a new departure. We are doing it partly because it is required by the agreements setting up the systems, but more importantly we are doing it because we think that it is right to create an extra level of protection for the rights of the individual under the systems, where UK participation is a new departure.
	Part 4 of the Bill also deals with Schengen cross-border surveillance. Fast and effective arrangements for agreeing cross-border surveillance operations are an essential part of effective international police investigations. Criminals do not stop at national borders, and, if our law enforcement agencies are to investigate them and gather the evidence that they need, they too must be able to carry on past our national boundaries in specific circumstances. Schengen provides a clear framework for agreeing to this sort of international operation. Joint and multilateral surveillance exercises will allow UK officers to cross national boundaries with the same ease as criminals, improving prevention and detection.
	UK police have welcomed the Schengen arrangements because they are reciprocal and because joining them will make it much easier for us to mount cross-border surveillance operations and pursue UK criminals who are active internationally. The basic legislation needed to permit cross-border surveillance, if operations are pre-arranged, was included in the Police Reform Act 2002, which the House considered in the last Session. This Bill will make changes necessary to cover urgent cases in which the surveillance cannot be pre-arranged and the foreign officers are expected to be able to continue in the UK until UK officers can take over.
	The Bill will amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA—to authorise surveillance by overseas officers, in tightly controlled circumstances, for up to five hours. The measure marks a new departure in international co-operation, but we believe that there are proper safeguards attached. Article 40 of the Schengen Convention makes it clear that officers acting under its terms must abide by the rules of the country in which they are operating. It is not in anyone's interest to contravene those rules; Schengen is firmly based on mutual co-operation and respect, which are central to its continuing success.
	The final measure in the Bill addresses the growing problem of the counterfeiting of plastic cards. More and more, that type of offence occurs on an international scale, which is why the EU agreed a framework decision to ensure that all member states had effective legislation to deal with that sort of crime. Implementing the measure in the UK requires an amendment to the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 to cover bankers' drafts, promissory notes and debit cards.
	All the EU agreements that underlie what is in the Bill have already been scrutinised by the EU scrutiny committee of this House, as well as that in the Commons. We commend the excellent work that the committee does. No doubt, it will have much to say about our proposals for implementing these measures. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation of the Government's proposals. Nobody can be in any doubt that those who engage in international crime and terrorism will never find friends in this House.
	We welcome wholeheartedly Part 2 of the Bill, which will give us extra-territorial jurisdiction over terrorist offences committed by UK nationals anywhere in the world and over attacks on UK nationals and diplomatic premises wherever they occur. We must show that the fight against terrorism is being taken seriously by authorising closer co-operation between police forces, customs authorities and intelligence services throughout the EU.
	That does not mean that we should not scrutinise the Bill carefully; nor does it mean that we should not improve it—far from it. It is important to make the distinction between constructive co-operation and harmonisation, and we must ensure that measures in the Bill do not undermine our civil liberties. In that context, some elements of the Bill raise concerns. In particular, we will consider with extreme caution the provisions to allow customs officers and police officers from abroad to conduct surveillance in the UK without first having obtained the permission of the UK authorities.
	The Bill implements so many elements of the Schengen acquis and related agreements that it looks as though the Government are leading us gently by the nose into Schengen by the back door. We shall consider that very carefully. How much has our scrutiny role in the UK Parliament already been undermined by the Government's signature to various protocols and agreements? Exactly what room for manoeuvre does Parliament have to improve the Bill? The full regulatory impact assessment lets the cat out of the bag. It tells us that the Government have already agreed,
	"to urgently ratify the Protocol"—
	their split infinitive, not mine. The assessment goes on to state:
	"Ministers have already agreed to ratify the Protocol in the UK and are under an obligation to do so . . . Failure to ratify the Protocol in the UK would break an international agreement".
	That protocol has regard to mutual assistance on criminal matters.
	Have Ministers thereby effectively usurped Parliament's powers to reject the Bill, if it wishes to do so? Have they usurped our power to amend it? In Committee, we shall ask the Minister to put on the record what our EU partners will do to enact national legislation that we hope will impose exactly the same obligations and penalties upon their citizens. We shall also ask what timetable they have adopted to comply with the various protocols.
	The backdrop to our consideration of the Bill must be the question of how far we have confidence in the judicial and police systems of other countries that will be party to the reciprocal agreements enshrined in the Bill. During the debate on the European arrest warrant earlier this year, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, encapsulated the problem when he posed the question:
	"Can we have sufficient confidence in the judicial process in other member states to justify giving up the traditional safeguards?".
	I agree with the noble Lord, as I do on so many occasions, that it would be wrong to claim that our procedures are always the best in the world. As he said:
	"Others may be our equals and in some cases perhaps better than ours, but not all. Italy is notorious for its delays. The system of criminal administration in Belgium is so bad that it has caused a national scandal".—[Official Report, 23/4/02; col. 226.]
	In a Community in which judicial and policing systems are not the same, the question of trust is paramount.
	So far, the Government have left too much to delegated legislation. In particular, too much is to be dealt with by negative resolution. That has been done in the mere hope that our colleagues in mainland Europe will abide by the Schengen handbook to the letter. The Minister has already raised an example. He talked about the countries that would participate in the arrangements set out in Part 1 of the Bill. He said that he hoped that the new procedures enshrined in the mutual assistance agreement would be extended to countries outside the European Union. In Clause 52, the Secretary of State is given a wide, open-ended power to extend the list of such countries as he chooses, subject only to negative resolution.
	Which offences will be the relevant offences for the hot surveillance powers? Clause 83 gives the Secretary of State the power, by order, to list any crimes that he likes. We shall examine the intention of the Bill and consider whether we will end up with listing activities that are crimes in other EU countries or elsewhere but are not crimes here. That would not be acceptable. Why is there nothing in the Bill to prevent foreign customs officers and police from carrying guns while they carry out hot surveillance—hot watch—in this country? We shall want to remedy that omission.
	Clause 83 should also state clearly that, when they carry out hot watch, foreign customs officers and police officers should not be allowed to enter private homes. They should not be able to challenge or arrest the person under surveillance. They should be required to contact the authorities immediately on crossing the border, and they should submit a formal request for assistance as soon as possible. That is not an unreasonable request from these Benches. It cannot be, because the Government say that those rules will be the first to be put in an order, which they will put before your Lordships after the Bill has received Royal Assent. As the Government already know that they want to do that and we agree that it is the right thing to do, we should have it in the Bill now.
	Most of the Bill refers to the sharing of information, and I would be the first to accept that good intelligence must be the key to successful detection and subsequent prosecution. We therefore want to ensure that the UK and other EU countries and their agencies are able to enjoy as much access to relevant information as is compatible with civil liberties. So we shall look carefully but constructively at the sections which deal with banking information and access to the valuable and valued—

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when did the Opposition become so concerned about civil liberties? I recall that when the Opposition of today were in government they showed not the slightest concern about these matters.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, every time I see an announcement by this Government, I am reminded that at the heart of the Conservative Party in the 19th century—a heart that has never stopped beating—was a care for civil liberties. We shall continue putting them forward now.
	As to the sharing of information, we appreciate that the Schengen information system is a valuable resource. However, we wish to have safeguards built into it to ensure that information we would expect to remain confidential is not released. The Government have very properly made that point themselves in the past. We shall simply try to ensure that the right safeguards are in the Bill.
	It is always a matter of public concern when governments concede the right to police here, let alone in other countries, to access our personal data for different and, perhaps, ill-defined reasons—even more so when access is gained without the knowledge of the person under investigation. Can the Minister confirm, for example, that it will be clear on the face of the Bill that United Kingdom immigration information will not be accessible by other countries in the EU?
	The Minister referred to the intriguing section on driving disqualification. As someone who has driven for many years across the countries of our European partners, my immediate reaction on seeing these clauses is to say, "Why not?". We do not want dangerous drivers anywhere on the roads throughout the European Union. Certainly if serious driving offences are the subject of these provisions, that is easily welcomed.
	But there may be sensitivities about different regulations in different countries. We shall need to ensure that someone from this country will not face disqualification abroad for a driving offence which would not be subject to disqualification here—or, indeed, a disqualification issued for a non-driving fault. As we are aware, in this country the Government are considering introducing driving disqualification for non-payment of fines which have nothing to do with driving. So there could be some sensitivities in that area.
	When we study the Bill in Committee, our main effort will be directed towards ensuring that there are proper safeguards throughout and that the issues which need to be addressed are on the face of the Bill. We believe that at the moment too much is being left to the order-making power of the Secretary of State.
	The Government must have already decided that the Bill is less than perfect in its current form because they have presented us with yet another objectionable catch-all clause. Under Clause 91, the "Supplementary and consequential provision" clause, the Secretary of State can do just about anything he likes to amend not only this Bill when it becomes an Act but other enactments, and he can do so by order subject only to the negative resolution. That is not good enough. I was concerned about this issue when I tabled an amendment to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and I remain concerned about it now.
	I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, when he stated that,
	"The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will shortly put to the House a report on experience with such clauses".—[Official Report, 21/11/02; col. 488.]
	and that there will be time for debate. I welcome that. I hope that our debate on Clause 91, which we shall have during the Committee stage in January, will both inform and assist the Committee's wider debate.
	We have agreed to the Government's request that the Bill should be taken off the Floor of the House in Grand Committee as the usual channels are co-operating as far as possible with the Government to help them to get through their heavy legislative programme this Session. But, when we have a Bill of such a serious and important nature in Grand Committee, where we cannot vote for improvements, it is more important than ever for the Government to listen and respond effectively to constructive amendments put forward by the Opposition Benches. If they fail to do so, we shall simply end up with a re-run of the Committee stage on Report, and that is in no one's interest.
	We believe that it is in the interests of the public here and across the EU that we co-operate effectively in judicial and police matters in the fight against crime and terrorism. Criminals have no care about what is right. We do, and so we fight them with the restrictions imposed upon us by our commitment to democracy, freedom and human rights. We abandon those commitments at our peril.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing last week. It was very much appreciated.
	The Bill implements several outstanding European Union commitments in the areas of police and judicial systems. In the parliamentary Session 1997–98, the Select Committee on the European Communities reported on enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the third pillar. It stated:
	"The Maastricht Treaty heralded a new era in the co-operation between member states in the fields of justice and home affairs. It placed such co-operation on a formal treaty basis in substitution for the informal arrangements that had operated previously".
	Since the publication of the Select Committee report, it has become clear that each member state has the right to initiate proposals under the third pillar. In certain cases, the Commission also has a right to initiate proposals.
	I served as a member of the European Communities Committee (Sub-committee F). In 1998 the Home Office reported that, overall, the domestic legislation agenda had not been heavily determined by commitments given as a result of third pillar co-operation. This was because at that time much of the third pillar work reflected the existing position. Many third pillar improvements had been implemented without overall changes in domestic legislation. An example of this was the NCIS and ACPO, which provided a list of third pillar measures which were in the process of being implemented in the United Kingdom.
	We were then one of only two member states which had ratified the Customs Information System Convention. At the time we took evidence in Sub-committee F, no third pillar measures in the civil judicial field had been implemented because no such measures had yet been adopted.
	The Crime (International Co-operation) Bill implements several outstanding EU commitments in the area of police and judicial co-operation—that is, the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 2000 and its 2001 protocol, the mutual legal assistance provisions of the Schengen Convention and the evidence-freezing provisions of the framework decision on the execution in the EU of orders freezing property and evidence.
	The United Kingdom Government state that,
	"this Bill demonstrates our commitment to effective co-operation against serious crime in Europe and beyond".
	Indeed, the provisions of the Bill transpose the key instruments in enhancing EU-wide co-operation between police forces and judicial authorities which aim to make the area of freedom, security and justice a reality.
	I accept that in a world in which criminal activity and terrorism respect no frontiers, so too must law enforcement be cross-border. Indeed, the measures here and the instruments they are based upon should be welcome developments as, while not necessarily new concepts, they are designed to streamline and improve measures for "international" justice.
	Mutual recognition is deemed to be the cornerstone of judicial co-operation and fundamental to the area of freedom, security and justice. Indeed, the question of why a criminal should be able to flee justice just because he or she has crossed the border is the basis for such co-operation. Such mutual recognition of freezing orders is introduced in Part 2 of the Bill.
	However, having said that about the positive approach to justice on a European level, I have significant reservations about democratic scrutiny, lack of transparency and openness, safeguards for defendants and the guaranteeing of civil liberties. This is not a contradiction in terms, as I believe we can support measures for EU justice without compromising fundamental rights. After all, we are aiming to provide security, freedom and justice. I question not what is being introduced, but how it is being done.
	The Bill reflects a more structured framework and a significant improvement on the ad hoc co-operation that existed between member states previously. In principle, we welcome the Bill, allowing Parliament the scrutiny of certain aspects of the third pillar. There are, of course, matters of concern, which I shall identify later. Suffice to say at this stage that co-operation at international level on crime and justice is important, and domestic parliaments should continue to have scrutiny over such matters. The legislative measures before us are new but they were integrated in the framework of the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam.
	There are three significant factors of which we should be aware. The first is that the United Kingdom has partial participation in the Schengen Convention. We have retained our border controls, thus we do not participate in the free movement of persons within the Schengen countries. I do not believe that today's debate has direct relevance to this matter, but I am sure that the Statement that is to follow will have a bearing on that.
	The 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam expressly recognises the UK's right to maintain controls at the frontiers with other member states, while also preserving its common travel area with Ireland. However, the UK Government's position in relation to the compensatory measures in the Schengen system is becoming increasingly clear. It is about increased police co-operation, a common immigration, visa and asylum policy, and judicial co-operation. The Bill demonstrates some aspects of that.
	The Government are in favour of participation in police co-operation, as reflected in Part 1 of the Bill dealing with mutual assistance in criminal matters. It is in favour of participation in the Schengen information system, as reflected in Part 4 of the Bill. We supported the opinion of the Select Committee on European matters that it is strongly in the United Kingdom's interest to participate in the Schengen information system. We cannot influence future developments if we are not part of the Schengen system, but we must exercise caution. While lending our broad support to Part 4 of the Bill, we must not underestimate genuine civil liberties concerns relating to data protection and identity checks in the present Schengen arrangements.
	On that point, I emphasise that as regards the implementation of EU justice measures into UK legislation, such as we are dealing with here, there is an unacceptably low level of democratic scrutiny. Our colleagues in the European Parliament are merely consulted on such measures, and the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council is made up of both justice and interior Ministers with often clashing political agendas. Transparency and openness are significant by their absence in the decisions of the Council of Ministers. There is no access for European parliamentarians or MPs, other than the relevant Secretaries of State, about what is done in secret. While both Houses of this Parliament debate legislation such as this Bill, there is perhaps a semblance of democratic oversight, but as the Government are obliged under EU law to transpose these measures within a certain framework, there is perhaps little that we can do about it.
	Democratic oversight and judicial review of a new generation of European policy in the field of justice and home affairs is vital to ensure both the protection of the rights of EU citizens and the openness essential to maintaining public confidence in supranational competence. The solution is not to denounce measures for EU justice, but to insist on proper interventions and involvement at an earlier, more appropriate stage. One of the key components in EU justice and home affairs policy development must be the commitment to give equal regard to freedom and justice as to security.
	EU justice measures are fast becoming a reality, not as is so often stated because of September 11th, but because of a commitment made upon agreement of the Amsterdam Treaty 1997 and the Tampere council in 1999. Indeed, much inconclusive discussion took place until the atrocities of September 11th brought into harsh reality the need to tackle international organised crime together. Thus decisions and agreements were achieved in unprecedented time.
	In addition to these measures, we must have an accompanying, parallel system of safeguards. Governments must commit to upholding the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and allow those rights to be enforced. We shall probe these matters at the Committee stage.
	Police co-operation is based on mutual assistance between police authorities to prevent and detect criminal offences. There is evidence that it is already operational in character. There are detailed rules on cross-border surveillance and hot pursuit, enabling police officers from one Schengen state to cross the border into another to continue their operations. Will the Minister confirm that the present practice in Schengen states is that, in urgent cases, it can be done without prior authorisation? If so, what implication does that have in relation to policing in the United Kingdom?
	It is on that point that we wish to reflect the concern expressed by Justice, whose prime concern with the Bill
	"is the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards combined with a failure to address the rights of the defence. While it is important for countries to be able to co-operate to combat crime, it is equally important that defence rights are maintained in such circumstances in order to protect the rights of the individual in an increasingly international environment".
	There are matters in Part 1 of the Bill that require clarification. Will the Minister confirm that overseas freezing orders should be restricted to a judicial authority and that that body alone should have the power to make such orders? I said earlier that we need much more information about the Schengen information system, the Europol information system and the Customs information system.
	The present system provides that data entered in one of the national systems is automatically transmitted to other sections. This means that all Schengen states have access to a common pool of data via their own national system. The SIS is designed to exchange data in order to maintain public policy and security, including national security. Are we satisfied that there will he no compromise in matters of our own national security and that its disclosure on SIS will safeguard our own security?
	I am aware that SIS must not include personal data revealing racial origin, political opinions or religious or other beliefs, as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life. We need to be satisfied that data protection rules cover most of those areas. Will the Minister confirm that that is so? Who is responsible for the accuracy of data and liability for damage caused by the transmission and use of inaccurate data? It would be helpful to know if there is transparency and effective legal remedies with regard to SIS and data protection.
	Let me cite the 1996 Court of Audit report on the Dutch SIS.
	"Whilst acknowledging that SIS data is potentially of great value, it emphasises that the system depends on the integrity of those who use it. More than 7,000 people are authorised to access the system in the Netherlands; around 500 of those are also authorised to change the data. The potential risk of unauthorised access, unlawful disclosure and/or inaccurate information being entered into the database is therefore great".
	We certainly welcome Clause 82 of the Bill, which extends the functions of the Information Commissioner under Part V1 of the Data Protection Act 1998. It allows the Information Commissioner to inspect personal data recorded in the UK section of the three European information systems without a warrant. There is concern that the system has not kept pace with the modern method of data storage and exchange. It goes against the rule of natural justice that citizens face an almost impossible task in having access to information held about them. Will the commissioner have the right to allow individuals to have access to information held and will the commissioner be responsible for monitoring the entry of information on to computer systems?
	Two years ago it was estimated that SIS had 49,000 terminals. How is it possible to guarantee total security? Will the Minister give an undertaking that security of these networks is being given a high priority? Framework decisions agreed by the Amsterdam treaty are binding on member states but the forms and methods are left to the national authorities.
	Of course we accept that crime sees no boundaries. Money laundering, terrorism, drugs and trafficking in human beings have global dimensions. Any measures designed to tackle such criminal activities are welcome.
	In addition to stressing the need for compliance with the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it is also essential to harmonise the existing discrepancies between the respective legal systems of the 15 member states, with a view, for example, to initiating a process of bringing all member states' legal systems into line with those offering the strongest safeguards in respect of the rights of the defence. This process of upward harmonisation will not only avoid creating disparities in the treatment accorded to nationals and residents of the European Union, but will also mark a step forward in the development of the EU's judicial culture.
	The first point that I should like to make as regards the UK's participation in certain parts of the Schengen convention is this. While successive UK governments have been unwilling to commit to making EU-wide free movement a reality, they have been willing to sign up to the enhanced police and judicial co-operation measures—the so-called "compensatory measures" for enhancing "internal security" to compensate for the lifting of controls.
	I cannot stress enough that any threats to the fundamental right to privacy must be legitimate, proportionate and necessary. In the event of any breach of those principles, recompense must be made available.
	In conclusion, perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to the report on the operation in 2001 by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. He said:
	"Throughout my travels, reading and discussing in connection with the Terrorism Act 2000, I have been fully conscious of the delicate nature of the balance between political freedoms and the protection of the public from politically driven violence and disorder".
	I trust that the Minister has that balance in mind in relation to Part 2 of the Bill.

Northern France: Illegal Immigration

Lord Filkin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on illegal immigration from northern France. The Statement is as follows:
	"As the House knows, since the beginning of June, I have been in negotiations with the French Government to tackle illegal immigration from France, focusing on making substantial improvements in border controls, improving security at freight depots and the removal of the magnet of the Sangatte centre.
	"This morning, I held further talks with the French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy. I am very pleased to tell the House that we have today agreed that the Sangatte centre will close by the end of December and will be handed back to its owners, Eurotunnel. This is four months earlier than originally anticipated.
	"As this House knows, the centre has been a magnet for illegal trafficking of immigrants since October 1999. Over 67,000 people have passed through it since that time. Its closure is, therefore, an extremely welcome achievement, and a major contribution to stemming the tide of clandestine entry into the United Kingdom.
	"I wish to place on record my appreciation to Mr Sarkozy for the positive way he has approached these negotiations over the last six months and the good faith he has shown throughout our talks. I am grateful, as I know those concerned will be, for the decisive action he has taken against illegal immigration in the Calais area, including the deployment of 1,000 gendarmes and the substantial enhancement to security measures. The French Government have taken away and re-housed 500 people so far.
	"But just as importantly, I have agreed with the French Government a range of measures, to establish immigration controls and border security operations in northern France. This is effectively moving border security operations to France.
	"The extension of these measures to other ports along the French coast, and in the future to Belgium, will ensure that instead of dealing with the symptoms, we are addressing the causes of our present difficulties. I can also tell the House that we have opened discussions with the Netherlands as well. This, as the House will recognise, is a transformation in our border security.
	"It is far better to stop people entering the country illegally than to have to send them back, with all the time-wasting expense that this entails. These measures build on the progress already made.
	"The security measures at Coquelles and Frethun have now been strengthened. The number of clandestines arriving from Frethun has fallen from nearly 400 in April to a handful in October. By Christmas, 100 per cent of the freight traffic travelling through Calais port every day will be searched.
	"Co-operation between our security and law enforcement services has led to the arrest and disruption of six major trafficking gangs operating in northern France over recent weeks. Nearly 250 people have been arrested for people smuggling this year. Immigration officers have been operating in Calais since 20th August. This operation will develop rapidly following today's agreement into a full, joint immigration control as early as possible next year.
	"These actions have been significant in sending a signal, and today's announcement will complete the message to those seeking to traffic human beings across Europe to the United Kingdom.
	"To ensure that we play our part in getting Sangatte closed immediately and for good, I have agreed that up to 1,000 Iraqis can come to the United Kingdom, not as asylum seekers but on work visas. This is a one-off exercise. They will be temporarily housed for up to three months while we undertake job matching. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for his co-operation.
	"In this way, we will ensure that those who might have reached Britain clandestinely will now pay tax and national insurance and will not be subject to continuing support from the British taxpayer. We will also take a limited number of Afghans under family re-unification, determined by the UNHCR. The remainder of the Sangatte population, together with those the French have already dealt with, as well as anyone subsequently arriving in the area, will be handled by the French authorities.
	"I can also tell the House that I intend to ensure that the UK's economic migration channels are available to those from countries that currently generate significant unfounded asylum claims. Legal economic migration strengthens our economy and underpins our coherent policy of managed migration. I believe that we should all unite against those who are currently arguing for a complete block on all immigration to this country, and I challenge the Shadow Home Secretary to join me in this.
	"This agreement with the French Government is a further piece in the jigsaw of radical reform to our asylum, immigration and nationality programme. Taken together with the new Act which was passed in the House of Lords and in the other place, this will give us the capacity to manage properly entry into this country.
	"I do not today pretend that we have reached the end of the road. We have only just passed the new legislation; we have only just reached agreement with the French. We cannot therefore be expected yet to have achieved the results which will only come from the implementation of these policies. This is a substantial step forward which no one predicted just six months ago.
	"However, I want to finish with this warning. We can put legislation in place, we can reach agreement with our French counterparts, we can debate these issues in this House; but they will come to nothing without a substantial change in the administration of the system.
	"I am making it clear today to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate that we expect a step change in the operation, efficiency and competence with which the system is handled. I shall hold to account senior managers in my department for an entirely different approach and a step change in the results achieved".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement.
	We welcome the news that Sangatte is closing. The Minister will know that I am not being churlish but am simply observing a fact when I say that noble Lords would have been happier had they heard the news first in this House rather than earlier on the one o'clock news.
	Sangatte is indeed a symptom, not a cause, of the growing asylum disaster in this country. Its closure, though welcome, will have little effect on the overall problem. What we need is a new treaty with France—like the one in force until 1997—to ensure that anyone who crosses the Channel is sent back within 24 hours, thereby deterring people from using northern France as a staging post for entry to the United Kingdom in the first place. Today's announcement will, we fear, make little difference to the overall tide of migration into Britain.
	The figures issued by the Government last week reveal the real state that we are now facing. In the last quarter, from July to September this year, over 29,000 men, women and children arrived at our shores to seek asylum—the highest quarterly level on record. The real question is why that number is so high.
	We know that the processing of claims under this Government is in chaos. There are 16,000 initial decisions still outstanding for resolution after a year. That does not help the real asylum seekers who have a genuine basis for their claim during their time of waiting. The Government have even failed to remove most of those who have sought asylum who should not even be here. They have simply abandoned their targets on that.
	The Sangatte agreement today has to be welcomed, but against a background of real concerns about the Government's policies. On what legal basis have they now decided to sidestep the Dublin agreement and take up to 1,000 Iraqis from Sangatte? After all, they are already in a safe country where they should make their asylum application. Are they all people currently resident in Sangatte, or do they include some who have passed through the centre since the summer and been given registration badges? By accepting them now, are we not signalling to the world that we will give way under pressure in the future and allow others to come here as their country of choice?
	The Minister has carefully said that the Iraqi Kurds who will come here will do so on work visas, so they are not being accepted as needing asylum. Others who are claiming asylum and work visas might then be justified in seeing these people as jumping the queue. The Minister says that the Iraqi Kurds will be here for three months while they look for jobs. What happens at the end of that period, whether or not they find employment? We certainly hope that they find employment if they come here. At what stage will their families be allowed to join them?
	We are told that about 1,000 people will be allowed to come here, but who decides how many and which ones will be successful? It is a very difficult decision. Will it be our officials?
	The Government also say that they have agreed to take a proportion of Afghans who have family in the United Kingdom. On what basis will that grant be made? Is it on the basis of asylum? When the UNHCR makes that decision, does it decide how many? Having decided the number, does it decide which individuals will come? Again, that is a very difficult decision.
	Finally, the Minister challenges my right honourable friend in another place, Oliver Letwin, to say whether we believe that there should be a complete block on all migration to this country. He knows as well as anybody that we have never said that there should be a complete block. The Home Secretary talked in another place about opposition in this House to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Like many of your Lordships, I worked through 14 days on that Bill. Our opposition throughout was never to the objectives behind the Bill, only to the Government's ineffective attempt to solve the problems. I am glad that the Government listened to some of our objections to improve the system, but not enough to make the system work as well as we hoped it would.
	Today we have one good headline on the one o'clock news, but one good headline today will not solve the real problems facing people who need to seek asylum in this country, nor will it solve the problems of people already in this country. My challenge to the Government is to look beyond the headlines in future and solve the problems.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. It cries out for a Europe-wide policy on asylum matters. We opted out of Schengen, yet here we are making bilateral arrangements with France. As I read the Statement—correctly, I hope—this is likely to happen with Belgium as well at some stage.
	The problem will not go away simply because the human parcel has been passed to another country. Last week's figures proved that there has been an 11 per cent increase in the number of people seeking asylum in this country. The Minister mentioned that 1,000 Iraqis would be given work permits to come to this country. There again lies the confusion, which we repeatedly explained during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, between economic migrants and those genuinely seeking asylum to this country. Nobody could deny that the Iraqis whom we take into this country are the victims of terrible persecution in their own land, as was evidenced by Jack Straw's statement this morning on the report that has been published about torture in Iraq.
	What is the exact number of people registered at the camp near Calais who do not want to get back to their country of origin? When the matter is carved up between Britain and France, what happens to those who are left behind? Is it correct that, despite the closure of the camp next April, there are still 1,800 people in and around Sangatte? There is newspaper speculation today that France is also pressing our government to take some of the group of 5,000 others who have passed through Sangatte since the summer. Are those individuals included in the talks? What is the Government's view on that?
	What would be the role of the British immigration officers whom the Minister mentioned, who are to operate on French soil at ferry ports? Would those refused be granted leave to appeal from abroad? What safeguards are there to ensure that the decision does not work to the detriment of victims of torture and persecution? What role is envisaged for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees? Would he be involved in relation to those people who may not necessarily form part of the present allocation, yet who are victims of torture and persecution?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the starting point, which I hope both Opposition Front Benches recognise, is that this is an achievement. Despite the good intentions behind it, Sangatte was a significant draw and a significant help to the traffickers who were extorting money from people who, for a variety or reasons, wished to get to this country. That is the context in which one has to see what we are announcing today. This was not a situation of our making or our choosing, but it was causing considerable problems to British society and to British people as a consequence of there being such an effective staging post for large numbers of clandestine entrants, able to make repeated attempts to penetrate into the United Kingdom.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a range of questions. We debated why the number of claims is so high many times during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I shall not repeat all the reasons, but we believe they include the prosperity of our economy, the English language, the decency and legal protections that this society offers to people who are seeking refuge and the presence of other nationals, who can provide support to people if they get into this country. Clearly, some people are fleeing persecution, while others are, understandably, seeking work.
	The noble Baroness referred to the number of outstanding claims. The very significant issue is that the speed of processing those who have applied for asylum this year has been rising rapidly. We have spoken about that on a number of occasions. The latest figure that I have seen is that 75 per cent of those who had applied this year or were applying currently were being dealt with within two months.
	The noble Baroness also asked why we had not renegotiated a bilateral readmission agreement with France. I believe she was referring to the so-called gentleman's agreement that has been much spoken about, signed in 1995. The first clause of that gentleman's agreement said that it would be superseded by the Dublin convention when it was implemented. The former government signed that. Furthermore, the agreement did not achieve results on the scale needed. In 1996–97, only 516 asylum seekers were returned to France under it.
	In short, we think it is better to prevent illegal entry of people reaching the United Kingdom in the first place, hence the importance of closing Sangatte and strengthening security at the French end of the Channel Tunnel and in Calais, effectively moving border security operations to France. I am sure that the noble Baroness supports the common sense of that approach in principle, rather than allowing people in and then trying to move them back.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also asked who will decide who comes in and who does not. Essentially, this was an agreement with the French on how to manage and end the current situation. It was therefore in the nature of a discussion and agreement between two sovereign powers on how to resolve the situation in their mutual interest and in the interest also of those in Sangatte while seeking to deter others from vainly attempting to get in by those means. Accordingly, the French felt, and we agreed, that it would be useful for the UNHCR to carry out a range of interviews to seek to document all the Sangatte residents and to identify their origin.
	As part of the agreement, we are to take the Iraqis seeking to enter this country. We agreed—on a basis which we think sensible, rather than going through a charade of asylum seeking—that they should be accepted in this country on a visa that allows them to work here.
	The UNHCR also identified Afghans who were vulnerable because they needed to be reunified with their families in the United Kingdom or had other particular vulnerabilities. The UNHCR therefore thought, and we agreed, that, as part of the settlement of the problem, we should take them into the United Kingdom. We felt that it would be right and sensible to do that.
	The deal does not sidestep the Dublin convention. The convention does not apply in this case because the people in Sangatte have not claimed asylum in France. If they had, the problem would not have arisen. This is a special agreement to resolve a special set of circumstances.
	I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that there should not be a complete block on migration. I am glad that she made the point; I did not expect to hear her say otherwise. I think that all sides of the House recognise that managed migration has a sensible part to play in our economy and our society. However, the crucial word, on which I hope that we agree, is "managed".
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that the matter highlights the need for a Europe-wide asylum policy. In many ways, he is right, and in many ways, that is precisely what we are quite vigorously working on in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. I shall not detain the House with what we are doing in regard to reception, the framework agreement, the qualification agreement and the renegotiation of Dublin II. However, there have been a string of measures which we hope will soon be agreed in the Council. We may, with good fortune, agree many of them by the end of this year, but I shall not hold my breath.
	We would, however, be foolish to think that agreement on those issues was the end of the matter. As one might imagine, Europe-wide agreements which form the basis of intergovernmental treaty agreements and in which every state has a veto tend to take a long time to negotiate. Although they are not quite pitched at the level of the lowest common denominator, they require the consent of all. Consequently, they do not always move as radically far forward as one might wish. Although there is more work to do, I am glad to inform the House that the United Kingdom is playing a very strong and vigorous role in developing the elements of a Europe-wide asylum policy.
	Nothing in what we have agreed with France slows down progress on a closer working relationship at EU-level. We have, if anything, deepened our relationship with both France and Belgium. We feel that France has behaved very honourably in very efficiently addressing the issue with us. The links between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and Nicolas Sarkozy are strong and good, which is in Britain's interest as well as the interests of Europe more widely. The same type of relationship is developing with Antoine Duquesne, Belgium's home affairs and interior minister, who is similarly keen to participate with us in supporting effective controls on illegal migration to the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the contributions he has made.
	As this is an exceptional situation, Iraq's victims of persecution are, exceptionally, being allowed entry under a visa arrangement. We shall try to ensure that they have accommodation and that best efforts are made to find them work, which, we believe, is their wish. Consequently, they will be given a four-year residency as part of the agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is aware, at the end of that time they will be entitled to apply for settlement.
	Others may well remain around Calais; at one stage, 4,500 people, I think, were registered as part of this process. I believe we have acted properly in taking 1,000 to 1,200 or so of those people. We think it right to do that although none of them had entered the United Kingdom or lodged a residence, work or asylum application here. Nevertheless, in the spirit of collective agreement, it seemed right to us that we should play our part. If other people emerge, the French authorities will process their asylum applications should they choose to make one. People have been entitled throughout this period to make an asylum application in northern France; it is just that many have not sought to do so.
	I trust that that answers many if not all of the questions. As these issues develop, I shall be happy to keep in touch with Opposition Front-Benchers if it would be of assistance.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the time has come when we have to face up to some very unpalatable facts? Is it not correct that the UN Convention on Refugees has been so widely interpreted by the courts that, time and again, the clear intention of Parliament has been frustrated? Cannot the Home Secretary be excused for fuming—as he was reported to be doing the other day—at decisions such as that about the Ahmadi family? Although they had no right to be in this country and no right to claim asylum here, their deportation was ruled unlawful because they were suffering from stress. Is it not all too plain that the courts will continue to make it impossible for the Home Secretary to control immigration so long as the refugee convention stands in its present form? Somehow or other we have to grapple with that problem and initiate debate on the ways in which remedies can be made more rational to suit present circumstances.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's generally supportive words about the challenge facing not only this Government but any government in the current situation. I shall not engage in the debate to assign all blame to the courts and the lawyers. That is the downside of a positive. Although we probably have greater judicial activism and better protection in our courts than many European states, that does not come without problems. We would be foolish not to recognise that there occasionally are problems.
	I also do not think that the objectives of the 1951 convention are the villain of the piece. During our consideration of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, I never heard any noble Lord say that we should not offer asylum to those who genuinely need it. As I think most sides of the House will recognise, the problem is that, for understandable reasons, a very large proportion of those claiming asylum are truly economic migrants. It is not easy to tell one from the other. Consequently, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, we passed that legislation.
	That point raises another issue which I have previously mentioned. At some stage, this House may be able to debate and reflect on the elements of a better system. I think that such a debate would be worthwhile. I am talking not about throwing away the 1951 convention, but about how to build on those processes and fundamental principles while recognising the current reality of massive international movements of population and extensive criminal trafficking. We could discuss a better way of being fair and standing firm on the 1951 convention. It is currently very difficult to do that. It is very difficult to distinguish asylum seekers from the thousands who may not be.
	Therefore, although I am with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on the point, I do not think that the 1951 convention itself is redundant. It simply needs to be developed.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister referred to the process of applications for asylum by Iraqis as a charade, by which he means that at the end of the day, after they have been through the appeal system, they are always allowed to remain here in view of the circumstances in their country of origin. What implications does that have for the people who are applying for asylum in this country and who are awaiting hearings before the adjudicator or the tribunal? Should they not also be given leave to remain without going through, as he has described it, the charade of the process?
	Secondly, may I ask him what are the implications of having the border controls in northern France and, ultimately, in Belgium and Holland? Does it mean that, if somebody applies for asylum in the United Kingdom at one of these places and they are refused, the appeal process will also take place in those countries and that the adjudicators and tribunals will have to sit in northern France, Belgium and Holland?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, when I used the word charade what I meant was that I believe that the vast majority of the 1,000 or so Iraqis who will effectively be given a visa allowing them to work in this country had obtained what they wished. One could therefore see little purpose in their seeking also to apply for asylum, having got what they effectively wanted—the right to work in the United Kingdom and to be given the visa status which protected them in doing so.
	The noble Lord then pointed out that this may be rough justice in terms of other people who are in the system. Other people are in the system. We will not, from this Dispatch Box, say for a second that the thousands of other people currently in the system—who have applied for asylum and, if they so wish, have applied also for appeals against a negative decision, either at the first instance, second instance, or even the third instance—should be granted work permits. There is no reason whatever why we should do so, which is why we will not do so. The 1,000 Iraqis are being given a right of entry as part of a necessary piece of political management to close the Sangatte centre and to staunch the enormous flow of people entering across the Channel, illicitly and illegally.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all congratulate my noble friend on what I think is a very satisfactory outcome to the best part of two years of serious problems at Sangatte. I declare an interest as Chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
	Sangatte, as he said, is to some extent an illustration of a very serious problem for the people of Calais, but it has also been a major contribution to stopping rail freight and the Eurotunnel services for a time. Since the new fence has been erected and is working, the numbers have decreased very dramatically and services have greatly improved. That is one reason why it is now possible for the two governments to agree to close the Sangatte centre early.
	My noble friend is aware that the problem is now migrating to other Channel ports. Therefore, will he also look at the problem of migration nearer the source, namely Italy? Many of us have been aware for some time that organised crime has certainly had a part to play in the flows of some of these people. Just this morning I heard that Her Majesty's Customs had organised a conference a week or two ago in Milan to warn shippers about the problems of drug smuggling, paedophiles, sex and people smuggling. I would ask my noble friend whether his department, the Immigration Service, could join with customs, and perhaps with the transport Ministers, to look at the problem of people climbing into trains in Italy—which is again clearly a case of organised crime—to close a further loophole in what otherwise is the opportunity to restart a very good service quite quickly.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his recognition of the achievement. I think that it is a truly significant achievement by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Such agreements are not easily made. They require vision, leadership and an ability to strike a personal relationship with another interior Minister to make such things come about— particularly when they cause pain for both sides in the short term, even though they will deliver significant benefits to both sides.
	I take his point that we would be naIve to think that this problem would be ended by our making it significantly harder for illegal clandestines to get through the north coast ports. If they are earning substantial amounts of money from such trafficking, people will look for other routes—and they will be doing so now, even though I believe that we have made very significant progress both with the French and with the Belgians. We are talking to the French about the issue of further upstream work. We are conscious that people are boarding freight trains in Italy. The French police are very much engaged in this problem and have had talks with the Italians.
	We will continue that sort of international co-operation, both with the French and with other European member states. This finds its reflection at a policy level in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but finds its true practical expression in some very good work, which has to continue, both through customs, immigration and police officials in each of the relevant member states.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned the people in the Sangatte centre who have not claimed asylum in France. When the centre is closed, will the French Government be providing the United Kingdom Government with a list of people who have claimed asylum, so that anyone else can be properly screened when they arrive?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the question posed by the noble Baroness is a good one and I will pursue it with the department. It certainly should be possible to make that much more foolproof than has been the case in the past, because EURODAC comes on line in the early part of next year. EURODAC, for those who do not thrill to some of these technicalities, is a computerised system which allows fingerprints to be digitised and therefore compared.
	It would be highly desirable that the French entered anyone who claimed asylum in that way onto EURODAC as soon as possible, which would allow us the potential, when that comes on stream, to compare their fingerprints. It would avoid what I am afraid we do know happens, namely multiple asylum claims by some people in several countries at once.

Lord Monson: My Lords, can the Minister confirm or deny reports that would-be illegal immigrants are now moving to Cherbourg and other French and Belgian Channel ports, in order to try to smuggle themselves into this country?
	Secondly, although the idea of temporary work permits is probably the least bad option in the circumstances—and to that extent I agree with the Government—could he confirm that those granted such permits will not automatically be given the right subsequently of permanent settlement in this country, still less full British citizenship? This would send out a signal that we are a soft touch, compared to the rest of Europe.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in reply to the first question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about illegal immigrants, one of the benefits of the increased technological surveillance that is being installed on the continental side of the Channel ports is that it will not only identify people who would have come in and claimed asylum, but will also identify people who are clandestines—who do not wish to claim asylum but who want to enter and work incognito in the illicit labour market in Britain. For obvious reasons, we have no precise understanding of how many clandestines who come in do not then claim asylum. We obviously know those who do.
	I touched on the issue of work permits earlier. If a person is effectively given a visa which allows them to work for four years and if everything else goes well, then at the end of that period they are entitled to apply for permanent residence. There is clearly still a discretion by the Home Secretary in that respect, but they are entitled to make an application if they so wish.

Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister describes these Iraqis admitted on work permits, does it follow that, if they obey the actively seeking work rules as applied by the Department for Work and Pensions, and nevertheless fail to obtain work, they will be entitled to benefits in the ordinary way?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is a clear question to which the answer is clear; namely, that will be the case. However, we hope that that would apply to few of these people for two reasons: first, because we believe that most of them want to work here and there is still a reasonably buoyant labour market; and, secondly, clearly we do not wish taxpayers' money to be unnecessarily disbursed if that can be avoided.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [HL]

Second Reading debate resumed.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, at first sight the Bill seems to be something of a ragbag but it contains some important provisions of which I shall mention only three.
	Part 1, Chapter 2 covers the obtaining of evidence abroad. In the old days that was done by means of letters of request in which, many years ago, I became almost by inadvertence something of an expert. But it was always an inconvenient way of obtaining evidence abroad and was often protracted. Clause 7 seems to me to be a great improvement. Our courts will be able to apply direct to the foreign court which will take the evidence in question. It will no longer be necessary to go through the Foreign Office for that purpose as was necessary hitherto. That must be a good thing.
	Clauses 13 to 15 contain the reciprocal measures to those in Clauses 7 to 9, but for some reason inward requests for evidence seem still to have to go through the Secretary of State. I am not sure why that should be. I am not sure that I altogether understand the explanation that has been provided in the Explanatory Notes. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he will enlighten us a little further on that point.
	I hope that the Minister will deal with another query. Presumably our courts will continue to be able to request evidence of telephone intercepts obtained abroad for the purposes of trials which take place in England. Such evidence was obtained not long ago and held to be admissible by the House in the recent decision of R v P. But, that being so, will the measure work the other way? Can foreign courts request evidence of telephone intercepts which have been obtained here for the purposes of their trials abroad and, if not, why not? Such evidence is not, of course, admissible in English courts for reasons which I have long found hard to understand and which I continue to deplore. But there is nothing in Section 17 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which would prevent such evidence being used in a foreign court. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on that point. It seems to me that it might be a point of some importance if we are to obtain convictions in foreign countries to the extent that we should. Meanwhile, I certainly support Part 1, Chapter 2.
	I turn to the question of foreign surveillance operations under Clause 83. For some it may seem objectionable that foreign police officers should be able to conduct intrusive surveillance operations in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by a United Kingdom police officer or Customs officer. I well understand that, but there are two factors to remember: first, that the arrangement is reciprocal and we shall be able to do the same abroad; and, secondly, perhaps even more importantly, that Clause 83 is far from being open-ended. It allows surveillance in the United Kingdom only where the surveillance operation has already started abroad and then only for a short period of five hours while the foreign police officer is, in the language, in hot pursuit of the target. I agree with the Minister that those are proper safeguards. When one has regard to the appalling problems of international drug smuggling which are getting worse all the time, it seems to me that Clause 83 is a small price to pay if we are at least to hold our own against international criminals, let alone defeat them. Therefore, I support Clause 83.
	Finally, I turn to the anti-terrorist provisions in Clauses 53 and 54. These clauses implement Article 9 of the Framework Decision of 13th June of this year so the Government have acted with commendable speed. What is to my mind far less commendable is the way in which these new provisions have been incorporated into existing legislation. The purpose of the new sections is to confer jurisdiction on our courts in the case of terrorist offences committed by or against British subjects overseas. The Framework Decision refers repeatedly to what it calls "terrorist offences". The problem is that the Terrorism Act 2000 contains no definition of "terrorist offences". That can now be seen to be a grave defect. Instead we now have the two long lists of offences set out in new Sections 63B and 63C and lists that are nearly but not quite the same tacked on to a provision about terrorist finance. I do not find that drafting satisfactory.
	Chapter 6 of my report sets out the reasons why I thought that it would be desirable to have a definition of "terrorist offences" that could be included in the Terrorism Act. Soon after the Terrorism Bill was published I spent an hour with the then Home Secretary trying to persuade him of my view on that matter but I did not succeed. The Terrorism Act instead specifies comparatively minor matters such as weapons training, fundraising, the wearing of uniforms and so on as terrorist offences. But nowhere does it state that murders such as those that were committed on September 11th or in Bali or in Mombassa are terrorist offences within the meaning of the Act. That seems to me to be very strange indeed. Nowhere is the word "murder" even mentioned in the Terrorism Act. Now it is to be mentioned for the first time. I am glad of that. I confess that I have an almost overwhelming desire to say to the Minister, "I told you so", but I shall try not to do so in too offensive a way.
	If we are to have murder included among terrorist offences, surely it should not be tucked away, as it is, in new Sections 63A to E. It should be set out in resounding terms at the very outset, probably in new Section 2 immediately following the definitions of terrorist offences in new Section 1. The measure would then no doubt refer to a new schedule which could be brought up to date as new terrorist offences are proposed, as no doubt they will be as the years go by. That format is what I suggested in Chapter 6 and Appendix E of my report.
	I beg the Minister to think again about the drafting of the new clauses. That would be quite easy to do and if it were proper to offer to do so, I should be very willing to offer my help. We have already missed a golden opportunity to include in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act a comprehensive definition of what we mean by "terrorist offences". I hope that we will not miss that opportunity for a second time.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, who raised some very pertinent points, particularly about the definition of "terrorism". I wait with some interest my noble friend's response to the rather important aspect that we are considering.
	Like the noble and learned Lord, I share the view that it is desirable, not only from the point of view of the law but also from the point of view of restricting terrorist activities, that we should be much more emphatic than we are in dealing with this matter. The noble Baroness sought to say—I in no way impugn her motives—that civil liberties should not be eroded. As my intervention suggested and notwithstanding her response, there is some doubt about the practices of our predecessors in that regard. We should do well to consider the bona fides of the previous government with regard to the establishment of civil liberties. I agree with her that the issue of civil liberties is very precious and that a balance has to be struck between civil liberties and the effective enforcement of the law. When there are doubts, I should err on the side of civil liberties.
	It is wrong for us to entertain the view that somehow or other we have a monopoly in this country so far as that aspect of civil liberties is concerned. There are plenty of countries within the EU that are deeply concerned about civil liberties. We should be concerned about the erosion of civil liberties; I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.
	Another important point is that there should be near certainty of apprehension so far as miscreants are concerned. On the whole, they are very inventive and we should be concerned about that. That point was effectively dealt with by my noble friend the Minister and that is underlined by Parts 1 and 2 and reinforced by Parts 3 and 4. It does not avail us at all to hope that all miscreants will be arrested. I believe that we have no alternative but to strengthen the current law. In an age of international crime, the response also has to be international. The EU is a very good starting point.
	The House owes special plaudits to the scrutiny committee of both Houses which considered this legislation. That committee made it possible to enact amendments to the law.
	Police and judicial co-operation, as well as other relevant provisions of the Schengen agreement, are absolutely essential if the system is to work. That makes the Treaty of Amsterdam so important. However, we should be prepared to act with speed if holes in the law are discovered and flouted by the unscrupulous. I have my doubts about the speed of the changes that may be required from time to time. I should like to hear what my noble friend has to say about that. We currently have to wait for some two years before any changes in an enactment can be provided. That is not adequate when we consider the way in which international terrorists and others behave.
	It should also be emphasised that national authorities should choose how and by which methods the enforcement of European Union law should be utilised. I am currently not totally convinced that they do that. I wait to hear from my noble friend on that issue.
	All of this illustrates in a practical way the importance of the European dimension. We hope that this will be only a beginning and that an ever-wider reaction will be fashioned. Mutual assistance in criminal matters is of the utmost significance. For example, it is supported by the evidence-freezing provisions of the framework decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property and evidence. In that regard, the way in which the relevant authorities deal with locating bank accounts and give necessary information concerning criminal investigations, which can be provided by banking information, are of the utmost importance. The missing links in the current law are filled in by this proposed legislation so far as we can see.
	The improvement of judicial co-operation is also absolutely vital in the fight against international crime. Judges are trained differently and behave differently in continental countries from our own and we do not take sufficient cognisance of that fact. I have never been a judge, unlike my noble and learned friend, but he recognises that that is in reality only a superficial difference.
	We are dealing with all kinds of sophisticated criminals for whom frontiers are essentially irrelevant. Prosecuting authorities have to be at least one step ahead as I have already said. It may well be necessary to extend these provisions in the light of experience. At the moment, whether the threat comes from Al'Qaeda, or from any other source, many innocent people the world over feel threatened. I have no wish to be alarmist, as that plays into the hands of the terrorists, but we have to be prepared. In part this Bill answers that particular problem. We can never be wholly satisfied. We also have to be prepared to say that we were wrong, or that we have to alter the provisions of the law or that the law is inadequate.
	In my view the Schengen convention and the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 2000 are essential provisions for combating international crime, as revealed by my noble friend. The provisions that this House is now considering include hearing witnesses abroad through television links. Although that is partially covered at the moment, the Secretary of State is able to extend that to other types of criminal proceedings. What is of equal importance is that for the first time the courts can hear witnesses who may be abroad or here via television links. The same can be done by telephone.
	This Bill is very wide. It covers all those issue that I have addressed and many others: banking transactions; accounts, in particular banking accounts; the transfer of prisoners to enable investigations to be assisted; terrorism, which is to be tackled much more effectively than at the moment; driving offences that are subject to disqualification orders and which are to be dealt with more vigorously on an international basis; and many other issues.
	In my view it is right that prosecuting authorities should be more prepared than ever, on an international stage, to respond to the stratagems of criminals. This Bill goes a long way towards achieving that.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as each of them has enabled me to shorten my speech. They have both mentioned terrorism. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not mind my referring to his comment that there is no definition of terrorism in our statute law. I suggest that terrorism covers a wide range of criminal offences that do not need to be redefined. If I understand the matter properly, terrorism is simply the motive behind the commission of criminal offences. There is such a wide variety of terrible motives that I believe it will be difficult to achieve a definition. I may be wrong, but we shall consider the matter in later proceedings on the Bill.
	It seems to me that this Bill is obviously necessary, although it is unavoidably complicated. It is necessary for two main reasons: first, for dealing firmly with terrorism, as has been mentioned, and secondly, since the end of the Second World War, there has been a vast increase in the easy movement of people, lawfully and unlawfully, around the world. In relation to people who live on islands, as we do, that increased ease of travel is mainly due to air travel. Across the mainlands of Europe and Asia travel has increased enormously due to easy movement by road and rail. Also the effect of border controls has diminished and border control has become much more difficult.
	The changes in the world, as mentioned by some noble Lords, are phenomenal and have occurred rapidly. Although I was born only 94 years ago, I have witnessed remarkable changes. Perhaps I may give an illustration. In 1913, when I was five years old, and had already come to love the seaside, my father drove my mother and me from north Kent to north Cornwall for a seaside holiday. There were few other cars on the road and once one got away from the towns and suburbs the roads were very rough. In that dry summer they threw up a lot of dust and when my father saw a cloud of dust ahead, my mother would say to him, "Hold back". At any event, he had promised my mother not to exceed 40 miles per hour! I am only blurting out the truth! That journey from north Kent to north Cornwall took us three days, but now we can fly around the world in three days thanks to the splendid passenger aircraft at our disposal. The movement of people has increased phenomenally.
	My recollection is quite good. A week after the First World War started I was six years old and reasonably observant. I scarcely ever saw a foreigner or a coloured person in Kent, where I was brought up, nor in London. When my mother took me to London, there were hardly any taxis so we had to take cabs.
	However, we have seen a vast change in the population, especially in the past 50 years. In January 1958, when all who were British subjects in what was formerly the British Empire and became the Commonwealth had a right to come and live here permanently, I became Under-Secretary at the Home Office with Mr R A Butler as the Home Secretary. He made me responsible for immigration control and for licensing asylum seekers, of whom there were very few. They caused no trouble. There were about 15 or 20 per year. But Commonwealth immigrants became so numerous that we had to diminish their right to come and stay here indefinitely.
	In 1959, 21,000 immigrants came from the Commonwealth. In 1961, 136,000 came. So in 1962 we had to have the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which deprived them of their right to live here but enabled many to come here for employment.
	It is interesting to note in passing that—I hope this will amuse the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for whom we have a high regard—when we piloted that Bill, I was of course in another place, the Labour opposition opposed it strenuously and threatened to repeal it when they came to power. But when they did come to power they did not repeal it, I am glad to say—they strengthened it.
	Therefore, I feel that the motives of the present government are right in trying to deal with the matters that this complicated Bill attempts to deal with. It is necessarily complicated, detailed and technical. But its provisions are of great importance. We shall have to pay close attention to them in the later stages of the Bill, especially in the six days in the Grand Committee. I think that the Government are quite justified in sending the Bill to a Grand Committee.
	I return to the subject of terrorism. To my mind, the most urgent and important part of the Bill is Part 2, which, in Clauses 53 and 54, deals with terrorism and extends the definitions of terrorism and the offences created by it mentioned last year in the previous legislation. Clauses 53 and 54 will make the method of dealing with terrorism more effective.
	Although the Government broadly deserve support on this Bill, I agree with those noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord who pointed out detailed matters which we must attempt to improve. My noble friend Lady Anelay was particularly justified in referring to the inadequacy of the order-making power. That must be dealt with; it is too loose. But we must also amend the Bill to ensure that, if police or other people from another country come here chasing criminals, they must inform our authorities, especially our police. That surely would not be difficult. Modern telephones, radio and so on will make it quite easy for foreign countries, for whom these people are acting, to give even advance notice if necessary. That must be done and the Bill should be amended, as my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns said.
	Perhaps I may presume to say in conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has earned our confidence on several occasions. I wish him success in the piloting of this complicated, difficult and necessary Bill.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have never been able to decide whether it is my eyes or my brain that causes me to read things with a slightly perverse view. When I picked up the Bill from the Printed Paper Office, I looked at the title page and thought, "Oh, heavens". I did not realise that the Government were in the business of promoting international crime.
	That may be perverse, but it is a perfectly valid interpretation of the heading on the title page of the Bill. I do not think that the British Parliament should progress a Bill that has an ambiguous title on its face. I ask the Minister most sincerely to consider that. If it were a criminal investigation (international co-operation) Bill or even a crime prevention (international co-operation) Bill, that would be perfectly satisfactory. But, as written, this short title is in my view improper. I do not know what the procedure is for altering the short title of a Bill. There may not even be one. I am glad to assure the noble Lord that I am in fact reassured by the long title of the Bill, which is perfectly plain. But the long title of the Bill is not on the face page, and it is the face page that I am concerned about.
	In the aftermath of the Mombassa disaster, preceded of course as it was by Bali, it is all too easy to think that we must go completely overboard in dealing with international crime. "Overboard" is a matter of definition, but it is necessary to remember and to remind ourselves that the battle against international terrorism is the same as the battle that we have against crime. While criminal procedures, the law and justice are a part of that process, we need also to think that it is part of a political process. One cannot win the battle against terrorism without winning hearts and minds. The same applies with regard to criminals. Somehow we have to persuade people that there is more to gain for society generally from ordered, rational and developing communities. It is an aspect of both those problems to which we often do not pay sufficient attention. It is easy to lose sight of when we are considering a specific Bill that deals with the investigation and, hopefully, apprehension of criminals.
	I have no difficulty with the definition of terrorism. I have always thought that the definition of terrorism was "any criminal act committed with a view to coercion". I wondered whether one should restrict that definition to political or religious coercion but, on the whole, I concluded that one should not. It is my view—and this is where the distinctions become blurred—that the actions of some small groups of young people which give rise to anti-social behaviour orders are a form of terrorism. In a sense, that is a diversion from the Bill, but it is an important part of the background.
	If the purpose of the Bill were simply to apply the relevant parts of the Schengen agreement to British law, it would be very straightforward and much easier to deal with. But the Bill goes wider than that. It deals also with the Commonwealth and, indeed, in appropriate cases where appropriate treaties exist, with the rest of the world. In the definitions in Clause 52, the Minister is to be given powers to add countries. I assume that that power is restricted so that in fact it means countries that gain access to the Schengen agreement by joining the European Union. If it means anything wider than that, to give a Minister power to include countries in such a procedure is too radical for us to accept. I hope that, when he replies, the Minister can give me the assurance that I seek.
	The other aspect of the Bill that interests me is the mutual provision of information. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, made the point that that is a two-way process; I must say that it is highly desirable. But I am not sure from reading the Bill at what point that mutual transfer of information may take place. My concern is whether it is when a criminal has been identified and charged with a crime and the international authorities are looking for corroborating evidence. Is it when a crime has been committed and we know what the crime is but do not have the remotest idea who has committed it, and so we are looking for evidence that may lead to the identification of a criminal? Or—this has caused concern with respect to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—will foreign groups working in the field of criminal justice be able to come on a fishing trip?
	I have no difficulty with what I read in the Bill about banking, exchange of criminals, and so on. But the European Union is now considering increasing the data retained by telephone companies, Internet providers and, especially, mobile telephone providers. Where today we have records only for billing purposes, in future we will have records of which Internet sites have been called up. Mobile phone companies can also be required to keep a record of where people are whenever their mobile phones are switched on. I would be quite satisfied for many countries to have that information but, even within the European Union, I should be concerned if some countries had access to it.
	So the question of when the Bill kicks in is important. If it is when we are dealing with an identified criminal, there is no question but that that is appropriate. It may also be appropriate in the case of an identified crime, but that is more doubtful. Fishing trips should be completely ruled out. That point is not sufficiently clearly defined in the Bill.
	I support the Bill's general principles. Obviously, we shall have to see it through Grand Committee, which will be an interesting procedure—although I have observed it before. It has always seemed to me that when a Bill is committed to a Grand Committee, the Committee should have the right to ask for a day on the Floor of the House if parts of the Bill are shown to be controversial so that we do not have only Report and Third Reading to deal with controversial parts of a Bill. Unfortunately, I could not make that point when the Procedure Committee's report was dealt with by the House in July as I was then flat on my back in hospital. I wonder whether that is possible. Again, perhaps the Minister can tell me about that when he replies.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords—

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I think that I am next. The Speakers' List appears to have been thoroughly messed up. I do not at all understand what is happening, but I think that I am to speak next.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to speak next, I shall not stand in his way.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: No, my Lords, there is no hurry.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in that case, perhaps I may start for a second time.
	First, I want to say something so commonplace that if it were all that I was to say, I should not be justified in rising. It is that, according to our traditions, the Second Reading of a Bill is an important set-piece political occasion. To use an analogy from the First World War, it is the heavy artillery barrage that precedes the infantry going over the top, during which the various interests involved prepare to engage each other in trench warfare over the Bill's various clauses. In due course, those clauses are likely to become part of the law of the land.
	At first blush, the Bill looks no different from many others. But is that so? As the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks and as is made clear in the summary section of the Explanatory Notes, the Bill implements political deals that have already been closed in either the European Union or an inter-governmental forum. So we are in truth discussing not legislation, as we traditionally know it, but the transposition of deals done elsewhere into United Kingdom law.
	I do not want anyone to get me wrong; I do not complain about that. In an increasingly interdependent world, described so vividly by my noble friend Lord Renton, decisions must now be taken in such fora. The wilder reaches of Euroscepticism, which suggest that the United Kingdom Parliament should specifically mandate our Government in such circumstances and then have some form of veto over what is to be agreed, are a fantasy. That kind of approach is a recipe for doing nothing, which will inevitably lead to criminal anarchy.
	A couple of weeks ago, I was involved in the selection of my successors as Conservative candidates for the European Parliament for the North West of England. During that somewhat unedifying experience, I was struck by one particular hopeful, who had an essentially Eurosceptic disposition. However, when asked about his views on a European arrest warrant, he responded firmly in favour of the principle. He had been a policeman in the Mersey Docks, so he knew at first hand how crime and criminals do not respect national borders. He realised that the only response to the threats that they pose was to deal with them on a multilateral, transnational basis.
	The real question for Parliament—and especially for the House of Lords since the publication of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—is: how should we deal with the politics of that? I am certain that the Minister will confirm that the Government cannot tolerate any deviation from what has already been agreed elsewhere. I suppose that it may be said that in this House, constrained as we are by the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury Convention, that is nothing especially new. However, I am sure that the Minister can also confirm that exactly the same criteria apply to the other place. That is something more radical.
	I recall with pleasure my spell on Sub-Committee F of the Committee on the European Union, when we discussed some of those things. I remember one particularly robust exchange with one of the Ministers of the day about her having gone beyond the scrutiny reserve. By no stretch of the imagination could it be said that the agreements are given the line-by-line scrutiny that a Bill is given in Committee or on Report. Given that there is one meeting a week, which includes the calling of witnesses, that is hardly surprising. It could hardly be otherwise.
	The current position is that Parliament gives relatively cursory scrutiny to proposals before they become law. It is only in the case of matters that are not transposed by secondary legislation that any detailed attention is given thereafter. Anyway, when that happens—as in circumstances such as this—there is remarkably little that can be done. In one sense, it is rather like a world that Lewis Carroll would recognise.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, it is often the case that the only detailed public scrutiny of such things is in the European Parliament. Depending on the legal framework within which the matter is set, that work may be consultative and not legislative. I shall make my position clear: I am not one of those who advocate the general application of the Community method to all European Union business. However, if, as in this case, the governments of Europe and elsewhere are to commit themselves internationally to legislating in detail, we must ask whether there is proper scrutiny of what is going on. I ask the Minister and, through him, the Government whether, committed as they are to parliamentary government and the democratic exercise of political power, they consider that the scrutiny of such areas of their responsibility meets the general standards of openness, transparency and accountability appropriate to the wider exercise of public business in general.
	I turn away from the de facto accountability deficit that such legislation throws up and focus my final remarks on transposition. As we all know, transposition can be done in various ways. In any event, it is both an art and a science. In addition, it is the fig leaf behind which all kinds of additional gold-plating are carried out, to the invariable detriment of the wider public. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether the Bill faithfully and exclusively transposes the international agreements and European legislation from which it is derived. Is there, in fact, a certain amount of rococo embellishment added, in the public interest and on our behalf, by the man from Whitehall, who knows best?
	For me and, I dare say, for other noble Lords, the difficulty is not that it is not possible to do it for oneself; it is that, especially for part-time politicians—I cannot claim to be one at present—it is incredibly difficult and time-consuming to compare the original source texts with the Bill that we are considering. I ask the Minister to ensure that an analysis is deposited in the Library of each House, showing how the source texts are being transposed into UK law in the legislation. It should also indicate the embellishments, if any, that may be added in order to improve it on our behalf.
	In 2002, the world in which we live may not be a Brave New World, but it is certainly very different from what it was even a few years ago. The problems that such legislation poses relate not merely to the suitability or otherwise of the effects of its provisions. As I said, they may already have become de facto immutable. They also lie in identifying the limits of what Parliament can and cannot do with the UK legislation that it is discussing. Until we are clear about both those aspects, we cannot give the detailed clauses the attention that they deserve.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose that I am one of the Eurosceptics to whom the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, just referred. One of the reasons why I am sceptical about the whole business of the European Union is that we are told one thing one day and something else another day.
	I well remember taking part extensively in the debates on the Amsterdam Treaty, when we discussed the Schengen agreement. Then, of course, we were told that the British Government had opted out and that there was no reason why we should opt into the agreement, because we were an island and, therefore, completely different. Now, here we are, going into it step by step, although we were told that we would not go into it. No wonder I am sceptical.
	We were also assured that corpus juris was only an insane idea in the brain of Eurofanatics. Yet, step by step and bit by bit, we adopt some of the matters put forward by those so-called Eurofanatics. No wonder I am sceptical. Mind you, I have always been sceptical about the whole arrangement. It is not good and has not been good for this country. I have declared my interest.
	Apart from the foreign surveillance operations, which I shall come to, the Bill will, as I read it, make details of the bank account of every citizen of the United Kingdom available to and subject to surveillance by existing EU member states and, after 2004—the way things are going—the 10 extra members. Is it not a fact that, if details of a bank account are requested by a participating state, they can be provided to a foreign state without getting permission from or even informing the account holder? Is that what it is all about? We know that that can be done in the domestic situation, but I am not sure that people in this country understand that those details will be made available to 24—perhaps, more—other countries. That is an alarming matter and an invasion of individual privacy. I am not sure that people in this country will like it much.
	I come now to search warrants for crimes committed outside the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether such warrants can be used, if the alleged offence is not a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. That is not clear to me, even though it may be clear to others, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear in his winding-up speech.
	Nobody could quarrel with the application of driving disqualifications in other countries. However, we must ensure that United Kingdom citizens driving abroad and foreign citizens driving in the United Kingdom are made fully aware that disqualification applies in all the participating countries, wherever that disqualification is imposed. I do not know how that will work. It is difficult to enforce driving disqualifications in this country. There are, I believe, hundreds of thousands of people driving around disqualified, and nothing can be done about it. I do not know what we will do when it applies to 350 million people—perhaps, 500 million—in Europe. I shall be interested to know what new enforcement arrangements there will be.
	I turn to the foreign surveillance operations in Clause 83. It is totally unacceptable to allow police and customs officials from other countries to operate unaccompanied and unsupervised in the United Kingdom for any period of time; whether it is five hours, one hour, five days or for ever. That is entirely wrong. The five hour period is simply the beginning; it is the thin end of the wedge. There is no doubt in my mind, because I am a sceptic, that the intention is to extend progressively the period as a prelude to the establishment of a European federal bureau of investigation.
	That was foreshadowed at the Seville summit. Indeed, Herr Schroder only recently said that there should be a European police force, and as I said, it has been envisaged by the European Council. The French and the Germans are putting forward this proposition to the Convention on the Future of Europe. It is a live issue. No wonder I and so many others are sceptical. The Government must be aware of those developments. What is their opinion of the establishment of a federal bureau of investigation under the control of Europol?
	I shall focus on the Bill's proposals. When these foreign police and officials operate in the United Kingdom, they will apparently not be liable for damage they may cause or for legal action to which they may be subject. They will be indemnified under Clauses 84 and 85 by the Government, and the bill will be picked up by the British taxpayer. But what is the position concerning criminal acts? Are those people to be immune from arrest? Even royalty has no such immunity, as we have seen recently.
	It seems that these foreign policemen and officials will not be subject to the police complaints procedure, which is the final protection of the British citizen against the British police. Will they be allowed to carry arms? That would be outrageous, because British police are not allowed to carry firearms except under special circumstances and strict control. How can it then be right to allow foreign police and officials to carry arms?
	Suppose they are carrying arms when they get on the ferry—what are they to do with them; throw them overboard? Or where will they deposit them? We need to know the answers to those questions. Will those people be wearing uniforms bearing means of identification? Our own police have to do so. Will these foreign officials and police be identifiable by uniform—jackboots or whatever they might wear? Or, if in civilian clothes, how will they be identified?
	How will the local police know when foreign police and officials are operating in their area? Surely we are not going to allow foreign police to enter a police area and operate on police work without the knowledge of the chief constable or his senior officers? There is nothing in the Bill about that. We want to know the answers to those questions.
	How will the foreign police arrive and, more importantly, when will they depart? We want to know that after five hours they are out. A law is to be passed, but how will the five-hour limit be enforced? What happens if it is exceeded? Will they then be breaking the law and arrested, or what will happen to them?
	Many more questions will arise during the Bill's passage, which brings me to ask, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay did, what is the status of parliamentary scrutiny? I understand that an inter-governmental agreement has already been reached. What happens if Parliament rejects the Bill or amends its provisions? Can the matter then go to the European Court of Justice, or will there be political or other consequences? If so, what are those consequences? I shall be listening carefully to the answers to those questions.
	Finally, I am not at all sure that this Bill should be sent to the relative obscurity of Grand Committee. Individual rights of our citizens are at stake. This Bill should be discussed on the Floor of the House. I am sorry that it has been agreed that it should go to Grand Committee. I was thinking of dividing the House, but perhaps that would be taking matters a little far. Therefore I shall not do so, but I hope that we will have a good, clear and sufficient discussion in Grand Committee. It may be necessary to table further amendments on the Floor of the House when we can vote on them to improve the Bill, although it is difficult to see how.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for having interrupted the beginning of his speech. At the same time, I hope that it will be accepted by the officials of the House that it would be a good idea to see that when the order of speakers is changed, every speaker taking part is served with a changed order list. I was out of the Chamber for only about five minutes during the debate when making a couple of quick telephone calls. It would not have been difficult to let me know that there had been a change of order.
	I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, for his extremely good speech and the points he raised. That is only to be expected as he is probably the authority on the subject, not excluding the Ministers. I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. I must say on behalf of the Green Party that when we look at the Bill, which on the whole we support, we shall look at it carefully in detail.
	However, as a number of noble Lords have said, some parts of the Bill are not acceptable. We are very concerned about making it a criminal offence to commit an act abroad or outside the jurisdiction even if it is not illegal in the country in which it takes place. We believe that that is contrary to traditional British jurisprudence.
	Our main objection to the Bill stems from the wide definition of "terrorism"—or, rather, the non-definition of "terrorism"—and, in particular, the failure to make a distinction between damage to property and harm to people. Thus we object to the inclusion of criminal damage offences, which could be used against those caught up in demonstrations of the kind seen in Genoa where attempts were made to pull down security fences. That may have been a criminal act, but it was not in any sense a terrorist act.
	The Bill fails to recognise that there are corrupt or illegal regimes against which armed resistance is justified. For example, most of the Iraqi opposition groups in this country could technically be prosecuted under this legislation. Already there have been misconceived prosecutions of people coming to this country who are accused of financing terrorism when all they have been doing is managing funds for opposition political or community organisations. It is thought in some quarters that it is because the governments they oppose are important customers of the British arms industry that they have been prosecuted.
	Equally, Members of your Lordships' House who buy or are given leaflets while on a human rights fact-finding mission abroad could be liable to prosecution if those leaflets were produced by one of the more vigorous opposition groups.
	There are many issues in the Bill, particularly in the second half of it, which need detailed examination. I agree that it is most inappropriate that the Bill should go to Grand Committee. I hope that we shall examine it in detail and amend it.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the Minister will be well aware that although there has been general agreement in principle for the Bill—and in particular for his wish to combat crime on a truly international basis—some serious misgivings have been expressed by a number of noble Lords about the detail of what is proposed.
	Perhaps I may start by following up the speech of my noble friend Lord Inglewood. He asked the Minister whether it would be possible to provide an analysis to put alongside the Schengen proposals together with the proposals which follow Framework Decisions and other Conventions—so that noble Lords will be able to judge for themselves the extent to which the House is being asked to follow the detail of those provisions or whether, as is the suspicion of a number of noble Lords, we are being asked to go further than has been requested in other jurisdictions.
	My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns outlined considerable misgivings about the extent to which it will be possible for this House—or, indeed, the other place—to amend to any degree the provisions of the Bill. In reaching a conclusion as to what action is necessary, it would be of great assistance if the Minister could arrange for such an analysis to be available in the Library.
	Would it be possible also to have a direct comparison with the source texts? It would be of assistance to the House if an analysis could also be made of the timetable during which other countries have either already implemented these provisions or are in the process of implementing them.
	Thirdly, if the Minister is as good humoured at the conclusion of the debate as he undoubtedly was at the start, he might also look with favour on a suggestion, which arises out of a number of contributions, that we should also have an analysis of the conclusions reached by the Select Committee on the European Union and its sub-committees in this House and the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place in regard to corpus juris, the European arrest warrant etc., and the extent to which these matters are directly related to the provisions of the Bill and what account the Government have taken of them.
	I ask for those three provisions in the belief that they will be of great assistance in enabling noble Lords to follow this legislation. The Bill has not been published in full in draft form. I know that the Minister and several of his colleagues in government have identified draft legislation as the most appropriate way forward, but as that was not pursued in this case it would be helpful—particularly as the Bill is to go to Grand Committee—if those kind of analyses could be provided. They probably already have been provided to the Minister and it perhaps would be only a matter of his ticking the box to allow them to be distributed on a much wider basis. If they have not been presented to the Minister already, they should have been.
	The Minister opened the debate by identifying a number of obstacles to the effective pursuit of criminals across boundaries. This found a resonance with noble Lords and he was right to identify those obstacles. But, as my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns pointed out, some elements in the Bill raise concerns. In particular my noble friend identified the provisions to allow Customs officers and police officers from abroad to conduct surveillance in the UK without first having obtained the permission of UK authorities. A number of noble Lords have identified these provisions as causing concern and it may well be that the Minister should be pressed to give further details of the safeguards it is proposed to introduce.
	My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith highlighted the danger of fishing expeditions. That must be a cause for concern, in particular as Customs officers as well as police officers will be able to conduct surveillance operations without the UK authorities giving their permission. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, spent nearly three minutes identifying his interest as a Eurosceptic, but that in no way undermines the strength of his point, in agreement with many other noble Lords, that we do not like the idea of unlimited surveillance by officers from outside the United Kingdom. These officers will not be liable for whatever damage they may do during the course of these operations, may perhaps be allowed to carry firearms and may not be in uniform, so what protection is there for UK citizens against some degree of foreign surveillance in those circumstances? I believe that the whole idea of there being unrestricted, open, order-making powers leaves a lot to be desired. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns identified a number of areas that cause her and many of us considerable concern.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also identified a range of issues on which the Minister should concentrate in seeking to reassure us. I refer, in particular, to the absence of sufficient safeguards with regard to data protection and identity checks. Those are just two examples set out by the noble Lord on which we seek reassurance.
	It was a great privilege for us all to hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He has the reputation of being one of this country's foremost authorities on many of the issues in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord reassured us about Clause 83. No doubt we shall take time to consider his reassurance, just as I hope he will also consider whether there are sufficient safeguards around Clause 83.
	I was particularly struck by his wish to see a detailed definition of "terrorist offences". My noble friend Lord Renton did a little to reassure us by saying that perhaps it was the motive behind the criminal act that was the element that sets terrorism apart. Even though that may be the case, we are entitled to see a more adequate definition of terrorism, other than by analogy through the additional clauses, which raise issues such as murder and other serious offences.
	There is unanimity in seeking to press the Minister for some definition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, suggested that he might draft a schedule. I do not know whether that was a rash offer, but it was one about which I believe I speak for the whole House when I say that we welcome and accept it. We look forward to seeing that draft. It is important to have unanimity and clarity on what constitutes terrorism.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suddenly realised that he was not in the other place and did not have to make party political points, or question the bona fides of the Opposition Benches, he echoed the serious concern about civil liberties. That concern is shared on all sides of the Chamber. After criticising my noble friend Lady Anelay, he said that he agreed entirely with her. If that is criticism, I understand that she is willing to accept it.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I entirely agreed with her, but I did not entirely agree with her predecessors in the Conservative Government.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, we have to deal with Ministers as they are today, not as we might wish them to be—on whichever side of the argument we fall.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who has a distinguished record on civil liberties, that frontiers are irrelevant in international crime. At the same time, human rights must be increasingly safeguarded when frontiers are no longer relevant. The noble Lord said that the Bill was only a beginning. That is right in some ways, and I am sure that there is much more to come down this road. The road down which my noble friend Lord Renton travelled in 1913 was a very different one indeed, as was the demeanour of his mother when she was concerned about the speed of a vehicle travelling at 40 mph. She uttered the sort of words that I should love my wife to use, which were in no way oppressive. She merely said, "hold back". That is an example to all those back-seat drivers who usually resort to greater criticism than that. My noble friend Lord Renton gave us a good reminder that travel has changed for ever. With air travel and the ability to travel such long distances, we need to improve the method of combating crime.
	My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said that the title of the Bill should be changed. I can reveal that the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Amendment) Bill was changed at my instigation and became the Minibus Act. It is perfectly possible for the name of a Bill to be changed, and I can well see my noble friend's point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, also wants a narrowing of the definition of terrorism, although I did not agree that we should go as far down the road as he suggested in differentiating between injury to property and injury to the person. On the other speeches that we heard, I remind the Minister that there is a degree of unanimity that the road that we are being asked to go down is, in principle, the right one. Equally, the Minister owes it to the House to introduce the safeguards that are so surely necessary if we are to convince the population about this measure involving international co-operation, which will include not only the 15 but perhaps 25 nations of the EU, or even wider more than that. To convince people that this is the right way forward, we need to respect human rights and to be more sensitive to the need to introduce safeguards.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the many contributions in this Second Reading debate. In many ways, such debates provide a flavour of the things that lighten our legislative burdens. I am thinking of the pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, gave us, regarding the increasing speed of international travel. Such debates also act as a gypsy's warning to Ministers. Part of the process is to give fair warning of the issues to which we shall return in more detail. That is how it should be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we must scrutinise legislation properly and we must not undermine liberty. I shall return to the point about liberty and civil liberties later.
	A number of references were made to the fact that Parliament is being asked via primary legislation to implement a framework agreement made between European Union member states. I shall not go into the fine detail as to what extent we are at liberty to go wider or narrower, although I shall refer later to when we can add other things. I shall give a fuller explanation of the extent to which one can have some flexing on a framework agreement, but the House is right that the basic principle is that one is expected to fulfil the measures as agreed, while having flexibility in the mechanism by which one achieves the end. That is an essential characteristic of such measures.
	Why are we doing it? Essentially, the House decided that that was how it should be. We had previous discussions as to whether framework agreements should be undertaken by secondary legislation and the House was clear that it wanted such matters dealt with as primary legislation. I therefore feel slightly aggrieved that we are being taken to task for doing something that the House said it wanted done in this way. I understand the reasoning, as it gives more opportunity for testing and scrutiny, about which there is nothing wrong in principle.
	I turn to the meat, or at least to some of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has made it clear both earlier and today that the focus will not be about attacking the principles of many of the measures but whether there are necessary safeguards so that the ends, which have often been agreed in the debate, are balanced by proportionate protections against abuse or misguided application. Again, that seems to be a fair challenge, to which we shall happily respond in detailed debate in Committee.
	I confirm that there is no intention to go into the immigration provision of Schengen. I can confirm that the UK will not be supplying to other member states or indeed receiving from them any immigration information as part of the SIS procedure.
	As to how much room for manoeuvre there is on the Bill, framework agreements are binding as to the effect to be achieved. We believe that we have struck the right balance in the Bill. But, again, we shall listen—as I hope we do—to comments. We do not believe that we have usurped Parliament's powers to amend. As to what other member states are doing, they are under the same obligations as the UK and we expect them to take the same steps to meet their obligations. For the interest and information of the House, I shall do some checking to see whether they are ahead of us or behind us.
	Overseas freedom orders will be issued only by judicial authorities. This is right; although authorities which are recognised as having judicial powers will also be able to issue orders.
	I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I thank him for the welcome that he gave to the Bill and to the scrutiny opportunities that arise as a consequence. He remarked on whether the UK Parliament had an adequate level of scrutiny as regards framework agreements. Scrutiny of a framework agreement operates at two levels: through the European Parliament and through the scrutiny provisions of this House and another place at each stage of an agreement through negotiation. That is an important and often challenging part of scrutiny. In effect, it means that to some extent the scrutiny takes place beforehand, while the legislation or the negotiations are under way, rather than solely on the Bill itself when it is before Parliament. Now is not the time to discuss the matter, but at some point in the future it will be good to have discussions in this House about the future of Europe; significant debates will be engaged in, as a member state, as to what that might imply for the evolution of the European Union, including how legislation is made and how scrutiny is applied to that legislation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was concerned about data protection as regards the SIS. We believe that the provisions are fully satisfactory. The Schengen Convention sets very tight controls on the use to which the data can be put. It also limits the type of information that can be entered.
	In the UK, the processing of data within the national section of the SIS will be under the independent supervision of the Information Commissioner. Clause 82 will give the Information Commissioner new powers to inspect personal data held on the SIS without needing the permission of the data controller. Exactly how the commissioner's inspection will work will be subject to further discussion and agreement between all those involved, but this power will ensure that the rights of the individual in respect of the SIS, and also of the European information system and the future customs information system, are properly protected. That is in addition to the protection already provided by the Data Protection Act. It will make it easier for the commissioner to ensure that these systems are compliant with the Data Protection Act. The Information Commissioner has a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of data. That is the fourth data protection principle. This responsibility would extend to the SIS and to the other systems mentioned.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—as we should expect—made a thoughtful and interesting contribution at start of our processes. He asked about MLA. We are keeping the central route for incoming MLA requests open because we consider it to be more efficient. It is very difficult for overseas courts, which are usually territorial, to know where they should direct their requests—because our judicial system is not based on a territorial distinct jurisdiction, as the noble and learned Lord knows better than I do.
	The Bill makes no change to existing provisions on the admissibility of telephone intercept evidence. I shall reply separately to the noble and learned Lord's queries on terrorism and send copies to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite.
	Yes, foreign surveillance is reciprocal. The noble and learned Lord is right. It is limited. It must be authorised in the country of origin. Officers must make contact with UK officers on crossing the border. Both of those tests have to be met for any surveillance to be lawful. I shall return to the point about the speed of application at a later date.
	I turn to the definition of "terrorism". We heard interesting contributions from several noble Lords. The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as both a serious criminal act and one that is designed to influence government or to intimidate the public, and made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. In essence, it carries the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton: it relates not merely to a criminal act but to the intent behind such an act. In other words, the context defines whether murder, as it were, moves from being simple murder to being terrorist murder. As the House knows, under UK law in general there are no specific terrorist offences. Suspected terrorists are prosecuted under criminal legislation.
	On the point about listing murder as a terrorist offence, it is not terrorist specific. We are taking extra-territorial jurisdiction for murder and new Section 63B(2) lists the offences that are acts of terrorism or for purposes of terrorism as defined by Section 1 of the Terrorist Act 2000.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. What is needed is not a new definition of terrorism. We have a perfectly adequate definition in Section 1 of the Act. What is needed is a list of terrorist offences, which we do not presently have. They are dotted around here and there in the existing Terrorism Act. It would be of the greatest convenience to have them all brought together—including murder, manslaughter and all the rest, where the necessary terrorist element is involved.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his intervention, given who has made it. I shall reflect on his point against a test of utility—as to whether it would add anything that would be beneficial to the Government in relation to these issues. No doubt I shall respond to the noble Lord on that point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right. Many of these issues are about a balance between civil liberties and law enforcement. However, I invite the House to reflect that civil liberties do not align themselves merely around the defence of the innocent who might be charged with an offence. They are relevant to the defence of "quiet enjoyment" by a person—in other words, being able to live without harassment, fear or apprehension of crime in one's community, in one's society. That seems to me to be just as important as civil liberty. That is why legislators make measures of this type—to try to ensure that a person can have that form of civil liberty too; namely, his or her own quiet enjoyment. We shall no doubt return to these points on many other occasions.
	Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about foreign officers informing, we anticipate that the vast majority of joint surveillance operations across international boundaries will be arranged in advance. The Bill provides for exceptional circumstances where this may not be possible. However, as I indicated, to take advantage of this facility, the convention requires that foreign officers must contact the UK police as soon as the border is crossed.
	On the title of the Bill, I am pleased to say that, until the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, guided me otherwise, I did not know what the answer was for changing the title—and I am not sure that I would have told him even if I had known; but we now hear that this is possible. In short, the title is devised by parliamentary counsel, considering the overall scope of the Bill; and the Long Title, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, acknowledges, fully amplifies the short title, so there is no risk of misunderstanding, which I think goes to the heart of his query.
	On the question about "fishing trips" in terms of data protection, the Bill will not allow fishing trips of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord. You can access the SIS only when you find, stop and arrest a person whom you think might be of interest and therefore want to check on a specific individual in specific circumstances.
	The order-making power in Clause 52 is needed to cover new states joining the European Union should this occur, as we expect it to, and also countries such as Norway and Iceland which are part of Schengen but are not in the European Union.
	The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was extremely interesting. It probably touches on my earlier point about a discussion at some stage on the future of Europe and how some of these issues are dealt with. The noble Lord is right that it should not be a mandate for doing nothing by having everything signed and sealed by a legislature before one can move. On the other hand, it is important that there is effective scrutiny at crucial points.
	I will not go into more detail now, because time is tight, but I mark those points and the question of whether the process of transposition fails to implement faithfully the framework agreement. We have placed in the Library a note that effectively compares the framework agreement and the clauses of the Bill. I will double-check with officials whether that goes to the completeness of what was raised today in discussion. I am unapologetic that the Bill will include things that were not in the framework agreement. If we have a useful Bill before the House, we should use it as a vehicle for carrying out things that we need to do. There is no difficulty in our making clear to the House and to the Opposition Front Benches where that applies.
	I will have a later opportunity to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about his views on Europe, and it will be a pleasure to do so. He commented that we were in danger of changing our position. I am reminded of what John Maynard Keynes said:
	"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
	The noble Lord made the central point that we do not participate fully in Schengen. As noble Lords will have gathered from our debate, we are clear that it is important for us to maintain border controls. We will exercise the freedom that the Treaty of Amsterdam gave us to participate fully in other parts of Schengen when it seems to us to suit the interests of United Kingdom citizens. We will use that test for almost all European legislation, asking whether it benefits British citizens rather than being some unclear process of Euro-harmonisation. The measures must deliver benefits to British citizens. We will apply that test in negotiations and legislation.
	Bank account requests can be made only in response to specific lists of criminal offences. Requests will not be disclosed as for domestic cases, and overseas requests will be subject to judicial discretion. Search warrants will be subject to PACE 1984, and the crime has to be an arrestable offence in the United Kingdom.
	The five-hour limitation is not a thin end of the wedge. I made clear that it is highly circumscribed and we do not expect that it will be frequently used. I invite the House to think about the alternative. If we did not allow it, as perhaps only one Member implied should happen, that would imply clearly that we prefer criminals or suspected criminals to enter this country, rather than police who are pursuing them to try to apprehend them. That is an Alice-in-Wonderland world, which is why there is a five-hour limitation to try to ensure that pursuit mechanisms are tied up domestically and to increase the likelihood of apprehending suspected criminals or terrorists.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. When I used the term "thin end of the wedge", I was referring to the propositions by French and Germans to establish a European federal bureau of investigation. I asked what the Government's view of that position was.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his correction and I accept it. We are against the EU FBI idea or proposal, as I am sure he will be relieved to understand.
	Complaint procedures to the tribunal under RIPA 2000 will be available. Uniform will not be worn for obvious reasons: it is impossible to track someone effectively under cover while in uniform.
	The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about innocent protesters. All the offences listed under Section 53B(2) must satisfy the definition of terrorism under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In response to the concern about extra-territorial jurisdictions for countries where an act is not a criminal offences, it is aimed solely at terrorism. We already have ETJ for terrorist bombing and terrorist finances to satisfy commitments under UN Conventions. These clauses take ETJ where offences are committed abroad by or against UK nationals for a terrorist purpose. The Government feel that is right in principle.
	The sequence of markers by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about where we will be returning in Committee was helpful. We know what we must come back to. As I signalled, we will seek to satisfy as far as is reasonably practicable some of the points about origin and application. It is not a draft Bill, for reasons noble Lords would understand. The draft agreements have been right through the EU scrutiny process of this House and another place. It is therefore hard to see how the form of draft that we recognise for other legislation could apply. I take the noble Lord's point that we will be looking to widen the application if membership of the European Union increases to 25 as we expect it to in two or three years' time. We must reflect on that.
	In conclusion, I do not pretend that I have answered every question. It has been a thought-provoking debate. It raised issues for me to reflect on in terms of principle, high policy and what we will need to do to satisfy the House on the detail of this important legislation. Having said that, I am warmly grateful for the very good reception the Bill has had in principle from all parts of the House. I thank noble Lords for that.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have listened very carefully to his summing up. He has not answered two important points. He talks about the scrutiny process through which this Bill and other European legislation have gone. Is he in effect saying that the United Kingdom Parliament is not free to alter substantially the framework decision? To what extent is the United Kingdom free to vote on it, to change it or, if it wants, to get rid of it?
	Secondly, the Minister acquiesced in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who envisages Europol eventually carrying out some of the powers under this Bill. Why has Europol been given immunity for its actions in Statutory Instrument No. 2973 as long ago as 17th December 1997? That cannot possibly have anything to do with the events of 11th September. To sum up, to what extent is the United Kingdom free to change the Bill, and does Europol have immunity?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am clear that it is convention that someone who speaks during a debate, but who is not in his place when the Minister responds, does not have a right of response. I am less clear on the position of a Member who is not present during the debate and arrives when the Minister is summing up.
	I addressed the first point and signalled quite clearly that I shall clarify it later. However, I spoke about the scope of the limitation in some detail in my summing up. No doubt, I will go the further mile on that. I shall not respond to the second question on the basis of principle and practice. Given my usual style, I will no doubt write to the noble Lord.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.